Volume: 4

Pages: 1-203

Exhibits: 10A, 17-20



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Plaintiff, *


VS * Criminal Business


JOHN W. SALVI, III * No. 99518 to

Defendant * 99523


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BEFORE: The Honorable Barbara A. Dortch-Okara, J.

PLACE: Norfolk Superior Courthouse

Room 25, Criminal Session

614 High Street

Dedham, Massachusetts 02026

DATE: Friday, July 28, 1995

TIME: 9:20 a.m.



Professional Court Reporter

14 Adin Street

Hopedale, Massachusetts 01747

(508) 473-3041




360 Washington Street

Dedham, Massachusetts 02027

FOR: The Commonwealth



360 Washington Street

Dedham, Massachusetts 02027

FOR: The Commonwealth


14 Vernon Street

Framingham, Massachusetts 01701

FOR: Mr. Salvi

J. W. CARNEY, Esquire


20 Park Plaza

Boston, Massachusetts 02116

FOR: Mr. Salvi



20 Park Plaza

Boston, Massachusetts 02116

FOR: Mr. Salvi



Day 4 Competency Hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Mr. LaChance's Closing Argument . . . . . . . . .154

Mr. Kivlan's Closing Argument . . . . . . . . . .164

Lobby Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188



Dr. Joel Haycock (Second Day)

By Mr. LaChance . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . 132

By Ms. Hinkle . . . . . . . . . . . . 91




10A Pamphlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

17 Hospital Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

18 Hospital Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

19 Article (Formally A) . . . . . . . . . . 146

20 Bound Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

E Identification (Transcript and Notes) . . 145

F Identification (Mr. Salvi's Note) . . . . 150

G Identification (Affidavit) . . . . . . . 152


THE COURT OFFICER: Court is now in session, you may be seated.

MS. HINKLE: Good morning Your Honor.

MR. KIVLAN: Good morning Your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. LaCHANCE: Good morning Your Honor. May I proceed?



Mr. LaChance

Q Dr. Haycock, when we broke on Wednesday afternoon, we were talking about delusions, do you remember that?

A I remember it a little.

Q Okay. Well, you had given us a definition of delusions?

A That's correct.

Q And I was asking you some questions about some particular fact situations in Mr. Salvi's past.

For example, you were aware, were you not sir, that when he was 19 years old, he made statements to his parents, about the Maffia and the Ku Klux Klan being out to get him, do you recall those, do you recall that?

A I don't recall that specifically.

Q All right, assume then Doctor?

A Yes.

Q That at the age of 19, Mr. Salvi told his parents on multiple occasions that the Maffia and the KKK were out to get him, is this the sort of statement that would reveal to you at least a potential delusion?

A I would certainly want to investigate it, sir.

Q And the way you would go about investigating it, is to talk to Mr. Salvi about that statement, is that right?

A That's correct.

Q And perhaps to talk to his parents about the conditions under which the statement was made, correct?

A Not necessarily in a competency evaluation, sir.

Q But in determining whether or not a delusion was present, that would be helpful to your making that determination?

A That might be helpful, it would also depend on what other information I had, sir.

Q All right. Now, another reason you why you would want to talk to Mr. Salvi about that, was to see if you could talk him out of it, is that right?

A That would be one part of what I might talk to him about, yes.

Q But the statement itself, would concern you enough to inquire some further investigation on your part if the statement had been made to you, correct?

A Yes, although it would depend on the totality of statements that were made to me and the totality of statements that I reviewed.

Q Are you aware sir, that at Christmas time in 1994, Mr. Salvi, while riding in a vehicle with his father, indicated to his father that the car had been bugged, by that I mean that listening devices had been planted int he car so that people could listen to his conversation and handed his father a note referring to the Maffia and the Ku Klux Klan, presumable being those who were doing the listening.

Do you recall that?

A I do recall that.

Q And is that a kind of statement that you would investigate as being at least a possible delusion?

A It would be, again, depending on what the totality of statements I had were.

Q And you are also aware, are you not, that in December of 1994, at Christmas time, within a couple of days of when this car bugging statement was made, Mr. Salvi was involved in the disruption of a midnight mass in New Hampshire?

A Yes.

Q And you are aware that at the time the mass was going on, he and his parents were standing in the back, and at some point during the mass, just after the homily, Mr. Salvi started toward the front of the church, toward the priest, and started calling the congregation, pussies, and other expletives which he did not normally say, do you remember that?

A I remember that from the selection of Grand Jury transcripts sent to me by the defense team, sir.

Q And do you recall that in that circumstance, several people had to guide him out of the church and to keep from coming back in, do you recall that sir?

A I do recall that, sir.

Q And do you also recall from the Grand Jury transcripts and the reports, police reports generated surrounding the incident that Mr. Salvi had started talking to them about a catholic welfare system as well?

A That's correct sir.

Q And you would conclude from that, that that subject was important enough for him to disrupt a church service to get out, is that right?

A I know from my conversations with Mr. Salvi that he has ideas about a possible catholic welfare system that are important to him, yes.

Q Now, given the fact that that disruption caused by his interest in a catholic welfare system, came within a very short time period of the time that he made the statements about his car being bugged by the Maffia and the Ku Klux Klan, does that aide us in any way in determining whether the statements about car bugging reflect delusional thinking?

A I don't mean to be difficult sir, but I don't accept the premise that the disruption, at least as described in the Grand Jury transcripts, was only caused by the strength of his beliefs in the catholic welfare system, in a catholic welfare system.

Q I understand that sir, what I am attempting to get at is whether is that kind of behavior, with that language being used, tells us something about the allegation of car bugging that he made to his father, may have been delusional?

A Again, it depends on the totality of statements. It's certainly, it is certainly a statement that I would attach importance to and I would want to look at, and I would want to look at other statements which might be similar in nature and compare them.

Q Now, you mentioned his catholic beliefs, part of his catholic beliefs that are link to the catholic welfare system, and the, well, let's put it this way, the releasing of people from prison who can print counterfeit money to print money for the Vatican, so that the Vatican can distribute that money to catholics in the United States to supplement their income also deals in part, with the concept that there is a conspiracy by the Free Masons and others, against he catholic church, does it not?

A Mr. Salvi sometimes expresses strongly that Free Masons are involved in the persecution generally of the catholic people, is what he says, rather than Catholic Church. I'm not sure I was responsive.

Q His catholic belief system if you will, or that group of ideas which he believes about the Catholic Church involves a conspiracy of Free Masons and others against catholic people, correct?

A He has a mix, in my opinion, of many many beliefs, and as regards his religious beliefs, he has some beliefs regarding the catholic church and its persecution, and the persecution of catholic people.

He also has some very negative beliefs about some elements of what he takes to be catholic doctrine, and he also has some very negative feelings about some catholics.

He also has a set of fundamentalist beliefs which I am not sure at all, although I am certainly not a theologian, are consistent with catholic doctrine.

Q Maybe we should stop using the word catholic doctrine and refer to Mr. Salvi's collective set of beliefs.

His collective set of beliefs includes one, that Free Masons and others are persecuting catholics, correct?

A His collective set of beliefs includes, and I am not trying to be difficult sir, but I have spent a lot of time with Mr. Salvi and I have reviewed many of his writings. His collective set of beliefs as I attempt to put them together, includes the idea that there is persecution of the catholic people, and that Free Masons have been involved in that.

Q Along with others?

A Along with others.

Q In positions of power?

A In positions of power.

Q He believes that he should attempt to start a catholic welfare system for every catholic in the United States, does he not sir?

A He believes -- he believes a catholic welfare system should be started. Now, he also believes that the Catholic Church would be better off if a group of the catholics were out of it. I mean, he stated that belief too. So I don't know that the catholic welfare system, which he believes should be started, has to be started by him, he believes it should be started, he doesn't think that he is the only person that should start it. At least --

Q Excuse me. Did you ask what his role was in that catholic welfare system was, sir?

A I don't recall that specific question, but I certainly was very interested in that problem.

Q Well, are you aware sir, that he told Dr. Schouten in an interview of July 23, 1995, as recently as I guess, a week ago, or a little bit less than a week ago, that he had, when asked about his role, that he had been selected as a member of a small group, an apostolate chosen to affect this catholic welfare scheme in the United Sates, are you aware of that statement?

A I'm not aware of that statement sir. Dr. Schouten prepared no report. I have not received a -- the only transcript --

MR. LaCHANCE: Your Honor, I object and remove to strike, it is nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Yes. Just answer the question, sir.


Q I just asked if you were aware that that statement existed, Doctor?

A I am not.

Q You know that Dr. Schouten's notes have been turned over, have you not?

A I do know that.

Q And you do --

A Turned over to the government.

Q To the government, and as a matter of fact, Dr. Schouten testified on Court T.V., did you see his testimony on Court T.V., Doctor?

A I did not.

Q You could have seen his testimony on Court T.V. had you chosen to do so, couldn't you have?

A I could have, sir.

Q Okay. Does the fact that Mr. Salvi has made those statements to Dr. Schouten reveal anything to us about his set of beliefs and his participation in it that is relevant to you?

A Had I had that information, I would have considered that along with the totality of statements that I got from Mr. Salvi during the course of our eleven hours of interviews, and from the writings of his that I was able to review.

Q Well, let's talk about some of those other things that you may be aware of in relationship to Mr. Salvi.

You were told were you not, that Mr. Salvi believed he had been poisoned, his food had been poisoned in Norfolk, Virginia, and at the Dedham House of Correction, had you not?

A I believe I was told that by him, but I certainly remember some -- I remember something about, from some document that was given to me, I remember something about his saying that he had been food poisoned at one of the Norfolk facilities. Now, whether it was both the Norfolk, Virginia facility and the Norfolk County facility, I don't specifically recollect, but I remember the food poisoning and I remember the connection with Norfolk.

Q Now, one of the things you did in connection with your evaluation is you had some contact with the defense counsel, did you not?

A I did.

Q And in addition to the items that they gave you, you talked to Ms. Bassil on several occasions, and she supplied you with additional oral or verbal information about information that they have gotten from Mr. Salvi during their interviews, is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q And one of the things they told you is that he had been complaining about having ben poisoned in Norfolk and in Dedham, correct?

A (No Verbal Response)

Q Do you recall Ms. Bassil talking to you about that?

A I recall Ms. Bassil telling me about food poisoning and I recall that there was a connection with Norfolk. Again, I don't recall specifically, but I do recall her telling me about food poisoning in Norfolk. I don't recall specifically which --

My recollection from some document I read was that he felt he had been food poisoned in Norfolk, Virginia, but I cannot say for sure. But I do recollect that he had said that he had been food poisoned in some place that was named Norfolk.

Q Well, Ms. Bassil told you that Mr. Salvi had tried to sneak out some food from the cafeteria, or chow hall at Dedham, in order to give it to his attorneys so that they could analysis it to determine, not whether it had, but to prove that it had been poisoned, do you recall her telling her that?

A It sounds familiar.

Q In addition, in Mr. Salvi's statement --

A I have some notes about my conversations with Ms. Bassil, but I -- they certainly were not verbatim, and I don't have them before me.

Q Your best memory at this time, as you sit there on the stand is that you recall something like that being said, to you by her, correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay, in addition, you said you reviewed Mr. Salvi's statements that were provided to you, in the very first statement that was released from Norfolk, Virginia, Mr. Salvi talks about there being semen in his grits and that it made him very sick, and he vomited for a period of ever ten hours, correct?

A I recall the statement about the semen in his grits and I recall his being sick, the rest I don't recall specifically.

Q And you also recall, I think, and I think we talked about it last Wednesday, but I am not positive, about a written statement he made about catholic males becoming infertile because at birth, somebody was sticking a needle in the males' scrotum and injecting some kind of spermicide, do you recall that statement?

A I recall you're -- or I recall reading it, you are bringing it to my attention, sir.

Q That again, was a statement that one would investigate for delusion, as being a delusion or as being a product of delusionary thinking, correct?

A I certainly, had I had that statement, I certainly would have initiated some line of questioning regarding it.

Q Now, in many circumstances, when you questioned Mr. Salvi about things, he refused to answer you, didn't he?

A That's correct.

Q And he refused to answer you on a number of grounds, correct?

A That's correct.

Q He refused to answer you because it was his Fifth Amendment privilege, is that right?

A That's correct.

Q And in a number of circumstances, he would answer -- he would refuse to answer the question or would avoid answering the question because the subject matter was too private, is that right?

A That's correct.

Q Now, you are aware as you look at Mr. Salvi today that he is wearing eye glasses, is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q And you were told something about those eye glasses by Ms. Bassil in one of the conversations you had with her, is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q And you were told that Mr. Salvi had his parents get him glasses, which were prepared with plain lenses, he doesn't need a prescription, and he wanted them because the Free Masons were out to blind him, do you recall that statement being made to you?

A What I recall is the following, and I certainly can stand to be correct on what was said to me.

I recall that Mr. Salvi -- I was asked whether or not Mr. Salvi was wearing glasses. Mr. Salvi and I had in fact had conversations about his glasses because his glasses had been knocked from him in the course of an incident at Bridgewater, and he had been concerned about them. I was told that his glasses were plain glass and that he did not need to wear glasses.

I was further told that when I was told this, I did not review any material regarding this, but I was told by Ms. Bassil that when Dr. Schouten, I believe, had asked him about the glasses, he had refused to answer about the glasses.

Q Do you recall Ms. Bassil telling you that his parents had been asked to make up -- to have the glasses made up and that he had told them that it was because he was afraid of being blinded by Free Masons?

A I don't specifically recall the last part of it, but it is certainly familiar, it certainly might be that she told me that the glasses had been made by his parents, and it's not impossible that she told me that it was because he was afraid, it's not impossible that she told me that he had told his parents, that his parents had told her, that he wanted the glasses to protect himself against the Free Masons.

And I certainly in a long series of phone conversations with Ms. Bassil, I mean, that is, numerous phone conversations with Ms. Bassil, I have no reason to believe that at any point she intentionally misled me about anything, and I would certainly accept her account of what she told me.

Q Okay. You asked Mr. Salvi about it, is that right, you just related what he said to you, correct?

A That's correct.

Q And that was that the eye glasses were for his protection, is that right?

A That's what he told me.

Q He also told Dr. Birkmire that at one point, did he not sir, isn't that reflected in the Bridgewater records?

A If you say it is sir, I don't specifically recollect it.

Q Well, the Bridgewater records were something that you considered in connection with this, did you not sir?

A I certainly did.

MR. LaCHANCE: May I approach?


Q I direct your attention to the top of the page in this area, it is a little bit difficult to read.

A Should I attempt to read it?

Q To yourself.

(Brief Pause)

A May I quote --

THE COURT: Have you read it sir?


THE COURT: If you would just indicate that you have read it?


Q And it says he wears glasses, correct?

A That's correct.

Q And it says that he told Dr. Birkmire that he wears them for, quote/unquote, "protection"?

A That's correct.

Q And the word protection is in quotes, correct?

A That's correct.

MR. LaCHANCE: Dr. Haycock wanted to say something and I don't know if it appropriate?

THE COURT: No sir, if it is a personal nature, one of the court officers can help you.

THE WITNESS: It's not a personal nature Your Honor, it's actually a question of --

THE COURT: Well, I rather you didn't address me.


THE COURT: Sir, if it something you would like to speak with me and counsel at the side bar, than you can do that. Out of the hearing of the spectators is all i am saying.


THE COURT: If it is of importance to you. I would rather not.

THE WITNESS: It's not that of level of importance.

Q Are you also aware sir, that Mr. Salvi had told his parents that he was the thief on the cross next to Jesus?

A I recollect something like -- I recollect his parents, or one of his parents reporting something like that.

Q Now sir, it was also relevant to your investigation in determining whether or not Mr. Salvi had a mental illness and if so, what kind, as to whether or not he had suffered in the past or was then suffering from any hallucinations, is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q Now, you asked Mr. Salvi on a number of occasions whether he was suffering any auditory or visual hallucinations, is that right?

A That's correct.

Q And he told you that he was not, is that right?

A That's correct.

Q And to the extent that that made a difference to you, you had to depend on the veracity of his answer, is that right?

A Not totally.

THE COURT: I didn't hear you, sir.

THE WITNESS: Not totally Your Honor.

MR. LaCHANCE: He said, "Not totally."

Q Well, let me put it this way, one of the things that you considered was his answer, correct?

A That's correct.

Q His answer being no, you relied on that to some extent coming to your conclusion, is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q Mr. Salvi also told you that he didn't have a history of hallucinations, is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q By the way, would you just define for us what you mean by a hallucination?

A A hallucination is a perceptual experience of something that other persons -- a perceptual experience of something for which other person would not think there was a realistic basis. They can be of a auditory, visual, olfactory, or tactile kind.

Q Basically, it is seeing, hearing, or experiencing something that isn't there objectively, correct?

A Yes.

Q You are aware that despite Mr. Salvi's protestations of not having experienced hallucinations, he had told his family, when he was at home in Florida, that he had seen an evil black bird like creature in the house and had heard it swoosh as it went by him, correct?

A I recollect that one of his parents at least, so testified in the Grand Jury minutes that were selected for me by the defense and sent to me.

Q So you were aware of that statement?

A That's correct.

Q That statement, if true, depicts a hallucinatory experience, does it not?

A Presumable yes.

Q At a time after Mr. Salvi had moved more away from his parents, in Naples, he moved into a new apartment, you are aware, are you not sir, that on the day or evening that he moved into that new apartment, he told his parents that he saw evil in that apartment and that he prayed behind a locked bedroom door, expressed the opinion that the devil was out to get him and that the next morning, after surviving the night, he moved out of the apartment, and would not occupy it, were you aware of that?

A I recollect something of that nature. And had that information, I believe, at the time that I did the evaluation.

Q Did you ask Mr. Salvi specifically about that incident?

A I don't recall that I did.

Q By the way, you said you asked him about whether he had any delusions or hallucinations, did you ask him in those terms, Mr. Salvi have you ever had hallucinations?

A I don't think so.

Q Do you recall what your words would be in asking -- words were in asking Mr. Salvi that question?

A I went at that issue in a variety of ways.

Q I'm specifically referring to you talking to Mr. Salvi?

A That's correct. But I went at that issue in a variety of different questions. Much like the little bit of this court testimony that I have seen, I saw Dr. Resnick, I saw a portion of Dr. Resnick's video tape, at a certain point, Dr. -- Mr. Salvi says that he is going at the same question from a variety -- he's going for the same information from a variety of questions. That's very typical of dealing with mental health professionals, and that's what I was doing.

Q To the extent that you can, can you relate us the questions you asked Mr. Salvi to elicit that information?

A I was interested in whether God ever talked to him. I was interested if he ever heard sounds that weren't there. I was interested in if he ever saw things that other people didn't see. Questions to that nature.

Q Doctor, let me ask you a question. If I asked you whether you had ever seen something that everybody else didn't see, how would you know?

A Well, in some cases, when someone sees hallucination, because it is a perceptual experience, and because they think it is real, they try to draw other person's attention to it. Much like, I don't remember the specifics of the account of one his parents, but assuming for example, that he saw a black bird, it would be typical that a person would say, that bird. They would try to call your attention to it because they believe it is there. So because they are seeing it, they think you are seeing it.

Q Well you know with respect to the two experiences that I just discussed with you, which was the evil black bird and the evil in the apartment, Mr. Salvi was alone at the time of those experiences, or at least the reports are that his parents were not present, when those things occurred?

A I'm sorry, I somehow thought his parents, I mis-recollected then, I somehow thought in the second, in the first occasion, that is the evil black bird, that his parents might have been in the room, but if they weren't, then I accept your account.

Q You were also told, were you not, that someone other than his parents, had related to the defense counsel, accounts of visual and auditory hallucinations of Mr. Salvi?

A If you are referring to statements made by a woman who I believe in named Cindy Lockshire?

Q That's correct.

A I was not aware of those -- I did not get to review those statements. I did not see those statements until I believe sometime this week when they were xeroxed and handed to me.

However, this may be responsive to your question. Ms. Bassil at one point, during the evaluation said to me that a private investigator retained by the defense team, had located someone in New Hampshire that, I believe it was New Hampshire, that reported the first instance of auditory hallucinations.

I indicated to her at that time, that I would be very interested in that report.

Q Doctor, you did see the report last week, is that correct?

A I believe it may have been this week.

Q In that report, the witness indicates that on a number of occasions when she conversed with Mr. Salvi, Mr. Salvi said he saw spirits, demons and angels, moving around the room, now that would be descriptive of a visual hallucination, is that correct?

A Assuming that Mr. Salvi told the person that, yes, that would be -- if you saw angels moving around the room, that would be a false perceptual experience in my belief and would qualify as a hallucination.

Q He also told her that he had a good being on one shoulder and a bad being on the other, and that the spirits told him things, do you recall that Doctor?

A I recall the good being on one shoulder, and the bad being on the other, but I don't recall specifically, I would have to have the document in front of me about the other part.

Q Maybe this will help, Doctor.

Do you remember that the report indicated that Ms. Lockshire said to him, "Hey John, that's just your conscious, you know, we've all got one of those. That's just you conscious." And Mr. Salvi saying to her, "No," because he heard the voices coming from out side of himself?

A I do recall that reference to voices coming outside, I believe I recall that reference to voices coming outside himself.

Q And that's kind of a typical description of a auditory hallucination, isn't it?

A That's correct. That the voices come outside, come from outside.

Q Now, you were aware that some psychological testing had been done by the defense in this case?

A That's correct.

Q And that psychological testing was done before Dr. DiCataldo did some more testing for you in connection with Mr. Salvi's evaluation?

A That's correct.

Q And you requested a copy of Dr. Kinschereff's report, and his backup data, is that correct?

A I think it was first offered to me, and then I indicated that if I could have it, I would want to have it.

Q Well you got it, didn't you?

A That's correct.

Q And you reviewed it?

A That's correct.

Q And on one of the questions on M.M.P.I. has the individual answer true or false, to the statement, `I often hear voices without knowing where they come form'?

A That's correct.

Q And on Dr. Kinschereff's testing, Mr. Salvi had filled in the block marked true, do you recall that?

A I believe I recall that Dr. Kinschereff called attention to that answer in his report, in his letter to defense counsel.

Q Now, you had that report at the time you evaluated Mr. Salvi, correct?

A That's correct.

Q Did you make specific inquiry of Mr. Salvi as to why he answered that question that way?

A Why he answered that question that way?

Q Sure?

A No, I did not.

Q That question is designed to elicit information that might suggest hallucinatory experiences, does it not?

A That's correct.

Q And you had no discussion with Mr. Salvi over why he answered that yes, when he had been telling you he hadn't been experiencing any hallucinations?

A That's correct.

Q Now, are you aware that on July 23rd, Dr. Kinschereff and Dr. Schouten had some conversation with Mr. Salvi about specifically that question?

A I reviewed a transcript of Dr. Schouten and Dr. Kinschereff, but I don't recall that, I believe it from earlier.

Q Excuse me, I will help you. That was on February 23rd?

A Okay.

Q The July 23rd was the Sunday before this hearing started this last week?

A I don't, I don't recall that I -- I don't recall that.

Q Assuming that Mr. Salvi conceded to them that he may have heard voices but doesn't recall, and was equivocal with them at that point in time where he had previously been adamant that he had not had such experiences, would that have had any meaning to you?

A Very, very little.

Q Suppose upon being presses, he had answered, that's private, I'm not going to answer anymore about that, would that have had any meaning to you?

A None.

Q He made a lot of things private?

A That's correct.

Q And some of -- and a lot of things that he made private, as opposed to violating his Fifth Amendment rights, had to do with his inner self, with what he was thinking and what his beliefs were, and how it was relating to counsel for example, correct?

A That's one set of things on which he would routinely or selectively invoke the Fifth Amendment, or else indicate that it was private, or else indicate that it was between himself and his counsel.

Q Now, during the time that you had Mr. Salvi at Bridgewater, you noticed certain things about him that were important to, or contributed to your diagnosis, is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q One of the things you noted was a flattened affect, correct?

A I thought so.

Q Well, you weren't the only one that thought so, that term is used in the Bridgewater report to describe him at the multi-disciplinary meetings, correct?

A I know that it is used on other occasions by other clinicians at Bridgewater.

Q And as a matter of fact, that was the kind of description of him that was given by Dr. DiCataldo during his testing procedures, correct?

A That's correct.

Q Now, a flatten affect is not only a symptom of schizotypal personality disorder, it is also a symptom of schizophrenia, is it not?

A Generally.

Q You saw in Mr. Salvi what is termed a set of idiosyncratic beliefs, is that right?

A I saw both idiosyncratic beliefs and an idiosyncratic way of compiling the beliefs, changing the beliefs, evolving the beliefs.

Q Having idiosyncratic beliefs is another symptom of schizophrenia, is it not?

A I would have to consult -- idiosyncratic beliefs are not, it is delusions that are specifically, it is delusional beliefs that is really the hallmark of schizophrenia.

A person might also have some idiosyncratic beliefs, but the hallmark of schizophrenia, what is required in order to make the diagnosis is not idiosyncratic beliefs, it would delusional beliefs, as regards beliefs.

Q But idiosyncratic beliefs are common in schizophrenic people, correct?

A Among their delusional beliefs there are also often some idiosyncratic beliefs.

Q You also mention a number of times in your report that there are loosened associations, is that correct?

A That's correct. I think I stated, I think I tried to indicate at several points, where, to me, it seemed as if his association process was loosened.

Q Loosened associations is another indication of schizophrenia as well as the schizotypal personality disorder?

MR. LaCHANCE: I didn't hear your question, sir.

MR. LaCHANCE: I'm sorry.

Q Loose association are also seen in schizophrenics, correct?

A Loose associations are seen in many people including very many normal people.

THE COURT: Sir, what are loose associations?

THE WITNESS: Loose associations to some extent, Your Honor, are in the eye of the beholder. It depends on -- it's really that the connection between one thought or one statement and the next connection is not immediately apparent.


Q So Doctor, I guess the answer to my question after what you said is, that is also present in schizophrenics, something you see in schizophrenics?

A In -- depending on the phase in which a schizophrenic -- in which a person suffering from schizophrenia is in because the course of schizophrenia varies, you might see more or less loosening of associations. But I certainly would agree with you that in schizophrenia, particularly in its active phase, there is often times gross loosening of associations.

Q Sir, I want to talk to you for a few minutes about Mr. Salvi's view of his own counsel.

You mentioned on direct examination that Mr. Salvi satisfied your criteria that he knows what his counsel do by saying something like they work for me, is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q You didn't ask nor did he tell you how he thought they were to work for him, correct?

A Well, in some -- in some -- I -- I collected some data which bore on that question, and I believe I put it in my first report.

Q But in that section that deals with specifically his view in relationship with counsel, the primary thing that you were concerned with is whether he knew that his defense attorneys were on his side rather than on the other side, right?

A In the part of the report that deals with his factual and rational understanding of the nature of the proceedings against him, that was all I was particularly interested in.

In the part of the section which had to do -- in the part of my report which had to do with ability to work with counsel, I looked at a variety of other things.

Q His view of counsel in order to see if he rationally understood the concept of counsel and what part they were playing in the trial process, he described his counsel as nice, punctual, and they kept him company, didn't he?

A I would have to consult my actual notes because I am not sure I put that in. I recall something like that. I did, and this is the issue in which I wish to address you or the Court. Unlike when I was here, when I came to the stand on Wednesday, today I brought to the stand my notes.

MR. LaCHANCE: May I have just a minute Your Honor, please.

(Brief Pause)

MR. LaCHANCE: Do you have your report with you?

THE CLERK: Hold on for just a second, please.

MR. LaCHANCE: I'm sorry.

(Brief Pause)

THE COURT: Yes sir.

MR. LaCHANCE: Page 25 of your report.

THE COURT: Yes. What are you referring to sir?

MR. LaCHANCE: Page 25 of his first report.

Q Last paragraph on Page 25. You say Mr. Salvi was asked about the role of defense counsel. He stated, "My attorney works for me. An attorney should work for the person they have been recruited or appointed to defend. Asked about his relationship with his defense counsel, he stated Mr. Carney, Ms. Bassil, I feel they have done a very good job for me so far. They visited me, they have been very punctual about things, very, very, good so far."

Is that right?

A "Very good, very good so far."

Q Was Mr. Salvi ever ask to explain what defense counsel do in connection with the trial of a case such as his, a murder case?

A I don't recall.

Q Throughout this whole time period, he failed to communicate with counsel about things they wanted him to communicate about, correct?

A That's correct.

Q And that would raise issues of whether he understood, really understood the role of counsel was to play with him in this case, would it not?

A It raised those questions, yes. And I attempted to address those in the largest section of my report.

Q By the way, you viewed, in this case, the relationship between Mr. Salvi and his attorneys as a very serious problem, did you not?

A In general, in a competency evaluation, I view the relationship between counsel and the defendant as a very, very, serious problem. It is one of the two main prongs, two main questions that one attempts to answer in looking at whether or not there are impairments caused by signs and symptoms of mental illness in those abilities to work with counsel.

Q Well, you termed his relationship with counsel in this case, effectively a waiver of counsel, in your report, didn't you?

A I forget if I used the term, operation -- in my first report, I forget if I use the term operational or effective waiver, but I -- of their advice.

Q It clearly wasn't a legal waiver of counsel?

A That's correct.

Q But it did the same thing because has attorneys weren't able to provide the assistance he needed in connection with his defense, correct?

A He selectively chose to work with his attorneys on some mattes and not on others.

And I gave a lot of data about this and I attempted to be very fair, to put in everything on both sides that might support rival hypothesizes.

Q But nevertheless Doctor, you termed it an effective waiver, or an operational waiver of counsel because of the effect that his failure to provide certain things was having on the defense of the case?

A Very specifically, his failure to provide an account of the events in the period roughly between December 28th, and January 3rd, which were -- which was the period I had repeatedly asked him about, I felt that hampered -- I argued in my report, I believe, and we would have to refer to my report, I argued in my report, that that would hamper his defense attorneys in the preparation of a defense.

Q And it would certainly effect their ability to even consider any kind of a mental stasis defense, would it not?

A It would if Mr. Salvi would not discuss with counsel his mental status at the time of the alleged offenses, and would not discuss it with any of the evaluators that counsel retained, then their ability to prepare a defense on the grounds of lack of criminal responsibility would be not only hampered, but probably ruled out.

Q Because you really need to know what is going on at least by description in someone's mind at the time of the incident in order to properly prepare some kind of a mental status defense, right?

A That's correct.

Q Now, you said that he did cooperate with counsel in some areas, correct?

A That's correct.

Q The area that he cooperated with counsel in was in their releasing the statements he wanted put out to the press, wasn't it?

A No, his counsel didn't always cooperate with that.

Q And he got very, very mad when they didn't, correct?

A (No Verbal Response)

Q Or maybe just very mad?

A He -- well, I had an account from them regarding his being mad that they didn't do that, and I certainly, in all my contact with counsel, never had any reason to believe that anything they said to me was not true.

Q As a matter of fact, he was willing to discharge these two people because they weren't going to release one of his statements, correct, that's what they told you?

A I don't recollect that specific point.

But if I understand where you're question is --

Q Please Doctor?

A I'm sorry.

Q At one point during your evaluation, you were provided by the defense with a statement written by John Salvi which they represented to you to be in response to their request for information about the events of December 28th, to January 1st and 2nd, correct?

A That's correct. And I so indicated in my original report.

Q That is one of the things that you listed, that you looked at and considered?

A That's correct.

Q And they told you that Mr. Carney had repeatedly asked Mr. Salvi for an account of the events of that period of time, correct?

A That's correct.

Q And that Mr. Salvi had said at least, that he agreed to write out that account, correct?

A I believe that is correct.

Q And that toward the end of March, they kept asking him and asking him for it, that he finally produced the written statement?

A He described it to me differently --

Q We will get to that in a second, Doctor. I am not going to let that go.

But they provided it to you with the representation that he provided it to them under those circumstances, is that right?

A They provided to me with the representation that they had repeatedly, over the course of several months, attempted to speak to him, attempted to elicit from him an account of the events, and that he had said he would write them out and that at a certain point, they received from him that statement and it was their understanding, as represented to me, that that was the response to their request.

Again, I have no, having had many contacts with defense counsel, I have no reason to believe that anything was ever misrepresented to me and I would accept their account.

Q Let me show you this document which is marked Exhibit Number 6 in this hearing, and ask you if you recognize that as the statement that they represented to you, that had been given to them by Mr. Salvi as an account of what happened?

A I do recognize it as such.

Q And that's the statement that begins with Mr. Booshaudde, if I am pronouncing it correctly, is that correct?

A That's correct. I believe it is a French type of pronunciation.

Q And you've read through that statement?

A I have.

Q Now, you had conversation with Mr. Salvi about that statement, is that right?

A That's correct.

Q And Mr. Salvi told you that this was about a basically fictitious character, it was a little writing, partly humorous, partly serious, but basically self explanatory, correct?

Something like that?

A Probably something like that. I think I described how he described it in my report. If you could refer me to my report, I would, if you read from my report, I would accept that that's how he described it to me.

Q Page 28. Page 28, about four or five lines up from the bottom. As a matter of fact, I was wrong.

You didn't ask him about it, he brought up the subject of the statement, how many statements you read during the context of an interview, is that right?

A This is unfortunately a very long paragraph.

Q I'm sorry.

A May I have time to read it.

Q Take your time to read it.

(Brief Pause)

A If I understand the question, I believe, -- your last question.

Q Yes.

A I believe he, according to this, he raised to me that I had received two of his statements, and I corrected him and said that I thought I had received three statements. He then interrupted -- may I read from my report?

Q Go ahead.

A "Mr. Salvi interrupted me to say, one statement, which is the one I released." That's a quote. "He then interrupted himself and said, `Which ones did you receive?'"

"I explained to him which ones had received including a statement written by Mr. Salvi to his attorneys which his attorneys stated to me had been written by him in response the their repeated requests for an account of his activities in the period of time roughly between December 28, 1994, and January 3rd, 1995. I asked him if he knew who had sent those statements to me and he said that he did. That he recognized that his attorney had sent them."

I will skip a couple of sentences and then go to, "I then asked him about why he had brought up the particular written statement."

Q Fine.

A "I then asked him about why he had brought up the particular written statement. I told him I found the statement somewhat perplexing. He said, quote, `That's basically a fictitious character. A little writing that is partly humorous and partly serious. It's basically self explanatory.' End of quote.

"And he then," this is not a quote, but I'm paraphrasing. In my report I was paraphrasing what he said.

Q Go ahead.

A "And he then gave me an explanation of the two stories contained in this statement, one about a person who does not have a very good life because he is not receiving assistance, and then about a woman, quote, `Who has a better life because she is receiving assistance. She is basically with a society of people whose number one goal is bettering their lives. It is basically a comparison between not being in such a group and being in such a group.'" End of quote.

"He was asked about why he had given that particular statement to his attorneys, and he answered that, quote, `I always keep a listing of writings with my attorneys as well as it is being a part of my defense in case something would happen with some of my writings while I am incarcerated.'" End of quote.

Q He denied giving it to them as an account of the events, correct?

A That's correct.

Q But he also said that he gave all of his writings to his attorneys, but that this, in addition to being filed with them for his writings, was a part of his defense, is that right?

A The exact quote is, from Mr. Salvi, "I always keep a listing of writings," in the plural, "with my attorneys, as well as it's being part of my defense in case something would happen with some of my writings while I am incarcerated." So I don't know -- I took it to mean, that the ensemble of his writings --

Q Were a part of his defense, correct Doctor?

A Yes.

Q And the ensemble of writings were essentially about this catholic persecution and the catholic welfare state that he was trying to put forward as a good idea, right Doctor?

A The themes of persecution of the catholic people, and the themes of creating a catholic welfare state in which people can receive assistance, recurred repeatedly in our interviews and also in his writings.

Q The writings that he would give to his defense attorneys, and you were provided with at least some of them, all involve that issue, correct?

A I would have to review, I would have to review all of them to say they all involve that issue.

Q Virtually all of them do then, rather than have you sit here for twenty or thirty minutes and review all the material?

A Believe me I'm with you, but I would have review them specifically to see which ones contain that. I know what you are talking about. I certainly know what you are talking about, I just don't know --

Q But you are aware of the twenty-five, thirty paged document which involved, that we offered Doctor because it involved sticking the needle in the scrotum of catholic babies to make them sterile, correct, you recall that document?

A That was not provided to me, by the defense. I don't know why. But that was the document, and to tell you truth, I've never read through it, but that was the document that you showed me on Wednesday, which is headed, dearest something, about journalists, and on which, on a particular page that statement occurs.

Q You read the Mr. Booshaudde statement?

A I have. That was supplied to me at the time of my evaluation.

Q That contains information, in addition to the little stories that he wrote, that goes right in to the catholic welfare system, does it not Doctor?

A He explained to me that the stories had to, were -- were essentially, I forget if he used the words parables, or something. I think he used the word allegories, but I would have to confirm that in my notes. The stories themselves, were allegories about that point. If you recall what I just read, it was a comparison, it is basically -- quote, "It is basically a comparison between not being in such a group and being in such a group." End of quote.

Q Would you agree that those two little stories are bizarre in their approach and the language?

A No.

Q You would not?

A I would not.

Q These statements, "Things that morning were not going well, in the attic of Mr. Booshaudde's mind, by about 11:47, Mr. began to shake with violent convulsions due to the 39 bobby pins which he stuck to his penis due to a mortgage which annoyed the Mr. Mr. had all he good do not to think about his red headed step child which was about to send him the bill from St. Johns Prep."

That's not bizarre?

A Sir, you could find in contemporary literature, the twentieth century, many accounts which would not be entirely different than that.

Q Mr. Salvi is not James Joyce, is he sir?

A He certainly is not.

Q Doesn't this reflect scattered and tangential thinking?

A It's hard to judge scattered and tangential thinking on the basis of writing. For example, the comment about attic, is very, it is a unfortunate common phrase to refer to persons who are considered to be undergoing stress or mentally imbalances, or whatever as having bats in the belfry. So the fact that he refers to the attic there, the attic of his mind, in a piece of writing, I certainly don't consider that bizarre.

Q How about, "Three weeks ago, Mr. Booshaudde was asked to take one night a week to go to a prayer conference organized by lamb chop."

That makes sense to you?

A It seems humorous to me.

Q Humorous?

A Yes.

Q The man with a flat affect has humor, Doctor?

A The only part of the -- the only part of the hearing that I saw, of this hearing, that I saw that I came in for, was the interviews with -- was the long video tape with Dr. Resnick.

I believe that Mr. Salvi does have a sense of humor, although in my first report, I didn't really see evidence of that. And it is certainly on display in the interview with Dr. Resnick to the extent that Dr. Resnick laughs at several points in the interview about what it is that Mr. Salvi is saying.

So to get Dr. Resnick to laugh, I would assume, requires some sense of humor.

I also reported in my second report, that Mr. Salvi would smile to me.

THE COURT: That he, I didn't hear you Doctor?

THE WITNESS: That Mr. Salvi would smile, there is a section of the report Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, thank you.

A When I --

Q Excuse me, let me just ask you this question.

When you saw Dr. Resnick's tape, the end part of the tape where Dr. Resnick laughs, is he laughing because what was being said was humorous, or because he was so totally frustrated at getting information out of Mr. Salvi?

A Mr. Salvi is a very tough interview.

Q Dr. DiCataldo did some testing on Mr. Salvi, is that right?

A That's correct.

Q And you used that testing in connection with your determination, is that correct?

A I did not.

Q You did not?

A No.

Q Did you rely on it to any extent?

A No.

Q Was there some problem with his testing, Doctor?

A Yes, he stated, I included the entire testing as part of including every piece of data which might conceivable be relevant. But he states clearly, that the results that he obtained on three tests that he administer to Mr. Salvi, namely, the Rorschach, the T.A.T. and the M.M.P.I. II, were not scoreable using any reliable means, and therefore could not be used even as a supplement to thinking about Mr. Salvi.

Those results were the same as Dr. Kinschereff obtained, in their overall meaning, in the same three tests that he gave him. He gave him the M.M.P.I. II. He gave him the Rorschach, and he gave him the T.A.T.

Dr. Kinschereff also indicated that there were not enough responses to score, therefore the tests were meaningless. And therefore I could not rely on them for anything.

Q Well, both Dr. Kinschereff and Dr. DiCataldo indicated and I'm quoting from Dr. DiCataldo's report, "While standard, normative data, can not be applied, the test results can still be interpreted to a clinical respect," correct?

A That's what Dr. DiCataldo wrote, yes.

Q You disagree with Dr. DiCataldo about that, did you sir, in not using them?

A No. Dr. DiCataldo was not saying I should use them. He was simply saying they could be interpreted, but he is using, he is not using a reliable means, he doesn't claim to be using a reliable means of interpreting.

He -- clinical interpretation is simple to look at something and you think, well, it could mean this, or here is a way of interpreting it, etcetera. But it is not an accepted way of interpreting it unless you have a certain number of responses.

And on those six tests, given by two different psychologist, one retained by the defense, one working with me in my report to this Court, in those six tests, Mr. Salvi did not give a sufficient number of responses for anyone to conclude, either Dr. Kinschereff or Dr. DiCataldo, that any one of the tests could be -- could be scored using reliable methods.

So Dr. DiCataldo then set about, a clinical interpretation of all three tests, none of which he believed to be -- to have sufficient responses to score reliably, and he indicated that and I quoted it.

Q His report details some conclusions that he drew about Mr. Salvi as a result of that testing, did it not, Doctor?

A No, they are not conclusions, they are --

Q Observations?

A Interpretations. That's how he heads the report. He says it can be interpreted.

I respect Dr. DiCataldo greatly.

THE COURT: Sir, wait for the next question.

Q Dr. DiCataldo is an experienced psychologist, is he not?

A Very.

Q And you would be willing to trust his observations of the individual apart from the tests, and his impressions of the individual apart from the test?

A I trust any data that Frank DiCataldo collects.

Q Dr. DiCataldo writes about Mr. Salvi.

"That he was orientated, alert, and aware, he arrived unescorted, skipping down just a few lines. He often maintained a fixed and vacant stare, and he held his head in a stationary position with minimal movement. His response to questions were sparse and parsimonious. He exhibited virtually no spontaneity, volunteered little information on his own. The tone of his voice was uniform and monotone with little variability. His mood was not depressed, but was more humorless and muted. His affect was bland and flat."

Do you agree with that assessment Doctor?

A I agree that Dr. DiCataldo put that in his report, and that's why I made it available to the Court as part of all the data I was reviewing. Could I continue to read?

Q Well, let me ask you another question Doctor.

The summary and conclusions on Page 3?

A The conclusion of Dr. DiCataldo's report.

Q On Page 3.

"Mr. Salvi did not produce psychological results that were valid in the sense that traditional methods of scoring and interpretation could be applied to his test data. His defensiveness and concerns about psychological self disclosure, likely strongly contributed to his production of constrictive test protocol."

"Nevertheless, the clinical interpretation of his psychological testing results are still possible. From this perspective, Mr. Salvi did not produce tests signs for gross disorder of thought. His thought processes are obsessive and rigidly concrete, and are devoid of fantasy activity and creative symbolism."

"The appearance and use of affect is extremely limited yielding test results that may be best characterized by a personal validity style that is emotionally shallow and constricted."

Is that correct?

A You are reading correctly, yes sir.

Q Do you agree with his assessment of Mr. Salvi?

A That wasn't an assessment, that was an interpretation.

Q Do you agree with his interpretation of Mr. Salvi?

I'm sorry Doctor, if I am not using the same words that you do, I'm not use to using psychological words in their specific context.

Do you agree or disagree with his interpretation?

A I can't say as I agree with his interpretation. And I am not meaning to give you a hard time. And I am not meaning to be obsessional about these words.

If Dr. DiCataldo had said to me, look, I don't think the results are valid and can be scored in a valid way, but, if I was interpreting it, I would say, he had -- he did produce test signs of a gross disorder of thought, then, you know, that would have been something, again, just like the issue of injections in his scrotum, that I would want to investigate further because it would be the first sign of anything that had shown up at Bridgewater State Hospital that indicated that he had a gross disorder of thought.

Even if it wasn't valid, it would still be worth pursuing.

Q What I am getting at Doctor, when you interpreted the Mr. Booshaudde statement, Mr. Salvi indicated to you that it was a humorous and sometimes serious attempt to do certain things, to write a story about certain things.

What Dr. DiCataldo's report suggests, is that he doesn't have the basis of humor or the abstract type of thinking necessary to produce an allegorical type of story, that's what I am suggesting Doctor?

A Is there a question there, sir?

Q Sure Doctor, did you consider that possibility after reviewing Dr. DiCataldo's report when you read Mr. Booshaudde's statement?

A I read the Mr. Booshaudde's statement several times. I read Dr. DiCataldo's report several times. I didn't see much humor in the Booshaudde's statement when I had first read it.

When I went back to it, some references conceivable were an attempt at humor. For example, lamb chop, that was a character, lamb chop was a character on television, as I recall, in children's show.

Q It's Sheri Lewis's puppet, Doctor, but it wasn't spelled with a capitol letter, was it?

A Well, it was on television, I don't know, I don't know how, if she wrote it out, since it was a character's name, I presume it would have been capitalized.

Q Doctor, perhaps I was being facetious. What I meant was, it's not spelled with a capitol like a name in the story, is it?

A You have to show, I don't recall if it is capitalized.

(Brief Pause)

THE WITNESS: Not capitalized.

Q Regardless of all of that Doctor, if John Salvi truly believed that that document was relative to his defense in this murder case, doesn't that tell us something about John Salvi's abilities in connection with whether or not he knew, or had a rational understanding of the trial process and what was going on in this case?

A But I have to go by what Mr. Salvi told me about the statement. You are asking a hypothetical question which contradicts what he told me about the statement. And when I read the statement, I felt like I understood what he was saying.

Q Doctor, --

A To me.

Q He also told you that he gave his documents to his attorneys to be kept and used in his defense, it refers to a singular, it?

A No, its. Its, that's just the way -- he's saying I believe what I quoted was, may I return to it?

Q Go ahead.

A Do you remember the page? --

Q Here, Page 29, top paragraph.

A I'm writing down -- I'm writing down, now, the its may very well, the its is in a singular, it may, in that sentence, very well refer to a listing, because that's the only word that is in singular. The sentence reads, quote, "I always keep a listing of writings with my attorneys as well as its," singular, "being a part of my defense in case something would happen with some of my writings while I am incarcerated."

So that the its may refer, grammatically, arguable, would refer to listing. I thought it showed good judgment to put --

Q Doctor, moving away from the grammar for just a minute, none of his writings, that you have ever seen are about the facts and circumstances involved in this murder case that's being prosecuted, are they?

A None.

Q And in that sense, they are not relevant, none of them, to his defenses in this case, are they Doctor?

A That's incorrect.

Q Doctor, to the extent that they show any of Mr. Salvi's mental processes, he's indicated that he will not pursue a mental defense, hasn't he?

A He did indicate that to me, yes.

Q He has been unwilling to share with at least his counsel and the defense experts hired by them, two psychiatrist and a psychologist, anything about his mental state at or near the time of the incident, isn't that correct?

A That's correct. To the best of my knowledge.

Q You don't believe Doctor, that Mr. Salvi was trying to share his mental state while refusing on all other fronts, do you, by these writings?

A No. But the line of questioning suggest that perhaps other people do. I don't, but defense counsel very well may.

Q His writings were for release to the press, is that right, to the best of your knowledge?

A I believe some are and some are not.

Q All of the ones that you have read Doctor, involve Mr. Salvi and his ideas about catholic persecution and developing a catholic welfare state, correct?

A You asked me that question before, sir.

Q I changed it this time, Doctor, I said, all that you can remember, because you certainly must remember reading some of them?

A I certainly remember reading some statements which pertain to the persecution of the catholic people, and which are pertained to creating a catholic welfare system.

And I certainly remember reading some statements which were directed for the press, and if you tell me that all the statements that were sent to me by defense counsel, all were for public release, I will accept that sir.

Q Doctor, you talked to John Salvi about the death penalty, is that right?

A I did.

Q And the first time you talked to him, or at least the times you talked to him about the death penalty that are reflected in your first statement, he told you that he wanted the death penalty because it was the sanest solution to an insane environment, is that right?

A I take your word for it, sir.

Q You asked him what factors he took into consideration in coming to that decision, do you recall that Doctor?

A Yes I do.

Q And do you recall that the first time he told you what your factors are, he included finances, time, catholic tax dollars, quite a few things, it is self evident, do you remember him saying that to you Doctor?

A I do remember that statement. I don't know if that was the only statement he made in response to that particular question, but I certainly remember that statement.

Q After he had said that, he talked about the everyday rigors of prison, right?

A That's correct.

Q And what he said about that was, I can study, it is self evident, I can pass time fairly well, indicating that he wouldn't have a terrible time in prison, correct Doctor?

A I would have to go back to the exact statement. He did say -- I do recall him saying something about he could study. He was concerned about life in prison. He was concerned about being in prison for a very, very, very long time.

Q Doctor, Page 23, your report. Two lines down, he said:

"He considered finances, time catholic tax dollars, quite a few things. I think it is self evident. Anyway with not everyone receiving assistance, it is a bad usage of tax dollars. He then invoked the everyday rigors of life in prison day after day, endlessly. Asked if that meant that he felt he would be unable to withstand the stresses associated with a very long prison sentence, he said, `I can study. It's self evident. I can pass time fairly well.'"

And then you asked him about execution in Massachusetts, is that right?

A That's correct.

Q Did I read it correctly?

A Yes, except the phrase, "Everyday rigors of life in prison, day after day, endlessly," is a direct quote from Mr. Salvi.

Q When he said that, you asked him a specific question, whether he thought he could withstand the stresses of a very long prison sentence, isn't that right?

A I did sir.

Q And he answered you, didn't he?

A He did sir.

Q And when he answered you, he told you essentially that he could. He said, "I can study. It's self evident. I can pass time very well."

And those are in quotes too, aren't they Doctor?

A Those statements you just read are in quotes. "I can study. It's self evident. I can pass time fairly well."

Q The point Doctor, is that when asked about the death penalty, he linked the death penalty in his statement to his statements about catholic welfare, and catholic tax dollars, didn't he sir?

A He linked it to that and the everyday rigors of life in prison, day after day, endlessly. I didn't ask him about endlessly.

Q Anyway, with not everyone receiving assistance, it is a bad usage of tax dollars, he said that too, is that right?

A He did.

Q And he said those things before he mentioned the everyday rigors of prison, didn't he sir?

A That's correct.

Q The first things out of his mouth, had to do with the catholic statements and his catholic thoughts and ideas in saving the catholic people tax dollars, correct?

A (No Verbal Response)

Q At least, that's the order he said them in?

A No. The order he said it was, "Finances, comma, time, comma, catholic tax dollars, comma, quite a few things, period. I think it is self evident. Anyway, with not everyone receiving assistance, it is a bad usage of tax dollars." Period, end of quote.

Q Doesn't that suggest to you Doctor, that at least in part, his decision making process is influenced by his catholic world view, if you will, or Mr. Salvi's world view?

A I believe Mr. Salvi has the ability to make decisions autonomously.

Q I understand Doctor, you told us that before. Go ahead.

A I believe -- I believe him when he says he weighs quite a few things in thinking about an extensive period of time in prison. It is obviously the case that there are many, many persons in this country who believe it is a bad usage of tax dollars to put persons in prison for the rest of their lives, rather than execute them.

Q Let me ask you a question Doctor, about that statement.

You talked to an awful lot of people faced with the death penalty, you told us that, correct?

A No sir, I did not say that. I have talked to a lot of people faced with, on first degree murder charges, but there is no death penalty in Massachusetts.

Q I understand that Doctor.

Have you ever heard anyone, other than Mr. Salvi, ever give an explanation for wanting the death penalty which included saving money, when it was that person faced with some decision like that?

A It's not something that comes up very often sir, at all because there is not death penalty in Massachusetts. So I rarely ask people about what are they thinking in terms of the death penalty. It's just not something that in a competency evaluation, I would consider because it is not --

Q You haven't done independent examinations outside of the state, in jurisdictions which have death penalties?

A I reviewed materials regarding a man in Florida facing, who is doing a death penalty appeal.

Q So the answer to my question is yes, or no?

A I didn't specifically question him. He wasn't seeking the death penalty. He was seeking to avoid it. So, I didn't ask him what factors he was taking into account in deciding to have the death penalty.

Q You talked a little bit about Mr. Salvi's understanding of the jury system and picking a jury, is that right?

A That's correct.

Q He did have some difficulty in determining what a jury does as opposed to what a Judge does when you talked to him about that, didn't he?

A I think that's what I indicated, sir.

Q He thought both had input into the finding of guilt or innocence, is that correct?

A I believe that's what he said.

Q Well, as a mater of fact, what he told you is that if the jury was for one thing and the judge was for another, that's what they called a hung jury, correct?

A I believe that is what he said early on in the evaluation.

Q You asked him, however, some questions about what he would like the jury to be composed of, or what kind of jury he would like, is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q And he specifically declined a jury that would seem to be the most sympathetic to him, correct?

A What jury would that be, sir?

Q For example, a jury of catholics as opposed to a jury composed of people including Free Masons, for example?

A Mr. Salvi has some very negative feelings about some catholics. I did not find it surprising that, as you earlier indicated when you were talking about the Christmas Eve events, or incident as reported, I did not surprising that he did not want a jury composed exclusively of catholics. I don't recall the Free Masons thing, but I will accept anything, anything that you, anything that you say is in my report about the composition of the jury, I accept sir.

Q Well, he wanted a multi ethnic, multi national jury, correct?

A That's correct.

Q As a matter of fact, he told others when he was asked the same question, Dr. Schouten and Dr. Resnick, that he wanted a jury made up of Free Masons and people from the K.K.K., and people from the Maffia, on and on and on, all different kinds of different people, including the people that he has claimed in the past have persecuted, or were persecuting, him and some catholics, correct?

A That's correct sir.

Q That would seem to be, would it not, self defeating type behavior, correct?

A Not in Massachusetts, sir.

If the connection you are asking about has to do with the death penalty.

Q No, no, not the death penalty.

Mr. Salvi doesn't give the appearance, at least in interview, of wanting to be found guilty, I mean, he wasn't looking to be punished, I think you said that, didn't you?

A That's correct.

Q So presumable, he would want a jury as sympathetic to him as possible in order to potentially get off, correct?

A That's correct.

Q In this case, he wanted all sorts of people on his jury including people from the K.K.K., people from the Free Masons, people from the Maffia, right?

A That's correct.

Q Now, that makes sense if Mr. Salvi thinks that a trial will allow him to get out his believes about the catholic welfare system, isn't that right, because he can talk to all of those people like he wants to talk to all of those people in the statements he's releasing to the press?

A Mr. Salvi repeatedly said in those statements that were supplied to me by the defense team, that the full story would only come out after the trial.

Therefore, I had no reason to think that he meant to bring out the full story in the course of the trial.

Q Doctor, what I asked you is not whether he was going to -- not whether he was going to testify or say at the trial what had happened on those days, but that he wanted to talk about the catholic welfare system to all of those different kind of peoples that he wanted on his jury?

A If -- I don't know what Mr. Salvi means in his writing by the full story. I don't know if the full story involves both the events, and some of the dominant themes in his evolving thought, or whether or not by full story he meant simply his account of the events related to the instant offenses.

Q Doctor, you brought up the term, full story, I didn't.

What I was asking you Doctor is, doesn't it make sense that you would want that kind of a multiethnic jury including those, the Free Masons, the K.K.K., and the Maffia, if you wanted to proceed as he has done in his statements to try to speak to all of those peoples about his world view that there is a necessity for a catholic welfare system?

A I'm not sure. He didn't say that to me, and I understand why you might draw that inference, but he says a lot of different things about the K.K.K. and the Masons in particular. He doesn't have a fixed set of beliefs about the K.K.K. and the Masons in particular.

He doesn't believe that all Masons are bad, which might be, for example, true of someone with a very fixed belief about persecution of catholics by Masons. He believes there are some good Masons. So I don't know if, when he wanted a Mason, he wanted one of the good Masons or one of the bad Masons, I don't know. It was a little grandiose.

Q Grandiosity can be a symptom of schizophrenia too, can't it Doctor?

A Grandiosity can be a symptom of expert witnesses, sir.

Q No comment.

When you examined Mr. Salvi over the entire period of time, is it fair to say that, in general, he had very much difficulty distinguishing between the issue of competency and the issue of plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, isn't that true?

A He had some difficulty with that problem, yes sir.

Q And depending upon how much of a time lapse there was between meetings or visits, he had a tendency to equate the two of them and not to find any difference, and so, to reject them both, correct?

A He rejected them both, I don't -- I never made the correspondence between the time lines -- the periods of time in which I was seeing him and his confusions, but I accept your word for it, sir.

MR. LaCHANCE: Judge, I've only got a little bit more, my voice is getting bad. Can we take a five minute break? Would that be possible?

THE COURT: Not five minutes, sir, when we break, we are going to have to take a lengthy break to deal with other matters, so if you want to break now, fine, but it will be lengthy.

MR. LaCHANCE: If I could please. I need to find something.

THE COURT: But you expect that when we return you will only be another five minutes, is that correct?

MR. LaCHANCE: Pardon me?

THE COURT: You expect when we return that you will only take another five minutes or so?

MR. LaCHANCE: Five or ten minutes, yes Judge.

THE COURT: Recess then.


THE COURT: No sir?

THE DEFENDANT: I would like to ask you something.

THE COURT: No, you can not.

THE COURT OFFICER: All rise please.


MR. LaCHANCE: May I proceed Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes sir.


Mr. LaChance.

Q Doctor, we only have a few more questions left.

One of the important things to consider in competency is whether John Salvi can participated appropriately in his own trial, is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q And that would include the ability to observe testimony going on, correct?

A That's correct.

Q To assimilate the testimony, is that right?

A Yes.

Q And to talk to his counsel about that testimony and to give them any assistance they need in order to properly represent him, correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, we've been here for a little under four full days now, do you understand that?

A I do sir.

Q And during that period of time, Mr. Salvi has sat here at counsel table, you have had a chance to observe at least while you've been on the stand and while you've been, you know, a member of the audience?

A Yes.

Q And I want you to assume the following, sir. I want you to assume that during the period of time that we have been here, that Mr. Salvi has communicated to myself on several occasions. I want you to assume further that he has written a series of notes which he has passed, and I wish you to assume that these notes, one of them marked Exhibit 7, one D for Identification, and two others that I will seek to have marked, all refer either to catholic welfare, or to his getting an opportunity to address the Court and the media about that issue, sir.

Based on those assumptions sir, isn't it true that Mr. Salvi's ability to help in connection with this case is affected directly by his need and obsession to get his message out?

A No, it is not true.

MR. LaCHANCE: May I have just a moment Your Honor?


(Brief Pause)

Q We talked a little while ago, that Mr. Salvi understood what the Fifth Amendment was all about, is that right?

A I indicated, I believe, that he invoked the Fifth Amendment in a number of times, and I do believe he understands it, that the Fifth Amendment concerns his right not to have to incriminate himself. His right not to take the stand for example.

Q You understand Doctor, as a forensic psychologist, that when Mr. Salvi talks to his counsel, he's protected by the attorney/client privilege, isn't he?

A That's correct.

Q And his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege with his counsel, would suggest that he does not understand the scope and the purpose of the Fifth Amendment, isn't that true?

A Not necessarily, sir.

Q Sir, one final question, or series of questions.

At the conclusion of the first period of time at Bridgewater, the forty days, Mr. Salvi was sent back to Bridgewater for another seventeen or eighteen days. When that happened, Ms. Bassil called and asked you for a psychiatric consult to see if some medication might help Mr. Salvi to be able to be forth coming to them, isn't that true?

A Yes.

Q Did you seek such a psychiatric consult?

A He had been evaluated by psychiatrists on many occasions already and was throughout the remainder of his time. Dr. Birkmire for example, who has been cited earlier, is a psychiatrist.

Q Doctor, you knew at the time that Mr. Salvi was returned to Bridgewater that there were other professionals who believed him to be incompetent, correct, or were suggesting that he was incompetent?

A I read the conclusions of Dr. Kinschereff's report which state unequivocally that he believes that he was incompetent to stand trial, yes, I read that.

Q Well, Ms. Bassil told you that Dr. Resnick had seen Mr. Salvi and at least reached a tentative conclusion that he was incompetent, is that right?

A Dr. Resnick testified here that he had not at the point, at that point. He testified here that he had not reached that conclusion until June 18th.

What Ms. Bassil said to me as I recall it, now, I may be, again, I believe, whatever Ms. Bassil tells you, I believe. So if Ms. Bassil tells you that she told me that Dr. Resnick said that he was incompetent based on Dr. Resnick's evaluation of him on January 15th, despite Dr. Resnick's testimony that he did not reach such a conclusion until June 18th, then I believe it.

What I do recall is that Ms. Bassil told me that Dr. Resnick saw Mr. Salvi and turned and said, "He's psychotic."

Q Psychotic is a person who can benefit from medication, is that right?

A That's true.

Q You know at this hearing, that both Dr. Schouten and Dr. Resnick have testified that in their opinion Mr. Salvi is suffering from a form of schizophrenia, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And if he is suffering from a form of schizophrenia, medication will help that condition in a substantial number of people with that disease, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q In this case, you have diagnosed Mr. Salvi one way, and Drs. Resnick and Schouten have diagnosed him in another, is that right?

A Yes.

Q In a number of contested hearings that you have testified at, there's generally been someone on the other side who was a mental health professional that was testifying to a different conclusion than you had reached, isn't that true?

A Are you talking about contested competency hearings, sir?

Q I'm talking about contested hearings involving mental health issues?

A In some cases. It is rare in a contested competency hearing that there would be a mental health professional testifying on the other side from myself. The two witnesses generally, in contested competency hearings, in my experience, are myself and the defendant.

Q It is true Doctor, that reasonable professionals can differ over diagnosis, is that true?

A Absolutely.

Q And in this case, professionals have disagreed over Mr. Salvi's diagnosis, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Since if he were schizophrenic, medication might help, would you agree that it might be a good idea to give him a four month try of medication to see if he would be able then to communicate with his counsel?

A There are a lot of assumptions in that statement sir, in my professional opinion.

Q So you can't answer the question as phrased?

A Not as stated, no sir.

Q Would you be willing to see Mr. Salvi undertake a four month trial of medication at Bridgewater State Hospital to see if there would be any change in his ability or his failing, if you wish, to communicate with counsel?

MS. HINKLE: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.

A I have previously indicated to the Court in both my reports, I believe, that I did not feel that in any way, Mr. Salvi required hospitalization, or met the criteria for hospitalization.

If, and I should note, that at no time, did any psychiatrist ever contact Bridgewater State Hospital and suggest that based on their evaluation of Mr. Salvi they thought he might benefit from a trial of medication. The idea of the trial of medication has only been brought to my attention in the past week. Although Ms. Bassil did raise it to me on the telephone.

Q Let's cut to the chase, Doctor?

A Sure.

Q You think that's a possibility in this case to hold off, for example, a decision on competency, put him on a trial of medication, and see what happens?

A It wouldn't be my opinion whatsoever. I think I've indicated that throughout my reports and throughout my testimony.

Q Doctor, isn't it fair that at the end of the first forty days, you thought this was kind of a close case as to whether he was incompetent or not?

A No, that's not true.

Q Isn't it true that at the conclusion of the first forty days, you really weren't able to make a determination or give an opinion to the Court?

A No. I've gave opinions to the Court in a variety of matters.

Q Doctor, would you look at Page 39 of your report with me, please?

A Yes.

Q At the bottom, tell if you didn't write it?

"In an operational sense, the defendant who declines to provide any account of his activities to his attorneys has waived defense counsel."

"The question before the Court, is whether Mr. Salvi's operational waiver of counsel's advice represents a voluntary decision or a set of true impairments, and is the product of signs and symptoms of mental disorder. The question is to what extent his de facto decision to waive counsel is willful and under his control, and to what extent it reflects some underlying impairment."

"Unfortunately I am so far unable to offer an opinion regarding this crucial matter."

Didn't you say that?

A I did sir.

MR. LaCHANCE: Thank you, that's all.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MS. HINKLE: Yes Your Honor.


Ms. Hinkle

Q Doctor, when you conduct an evaluation such as this for the Court, whom do you consider to be the client for whom you are reporting?

MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.

A The Court.

THE COURT: Overruled. What was your answer, sir?

A The Court.

Q Now have you had occasion Doctor, or if I could rephrase that.

What was the last competency evaluation you conducted yourself?

A It was for the Court.

Q And did that concern an individual who was charged with the crime in the City of New Bedford?

A Excuse me?

Q Did that concern an individual charged with a crime in the City in Bristol County, possible New Bedford or Fall River?

MR. LaCHANCE: Objection to the relevance to his line of questioning.

THE COURT: Overruled sir, you can move to strike. I need to hear more about it.

A Yes.

Q And as a result of that evaluation that you conducted, what opinion did you form regarding that man's competency?

A I formed the opinion that signs and symptoms of an active psychosis interfered with those abilities usually considered by the Court in its determination of a defendant's competence to stand trial.

Q So again sir, in a lay person's view, which I know you don't testify in, you made a finding that the Court relied on to find the defendant incompetent?

A I believe the Court took my opinion into consideration, or at least I gave the report to the Court.

Q And was that a man charged with the very unpopular crime, in fact, shooting and killing a police officer?

A Yes.

MR. LaCHANCE: Judge, I would move to strike. The previous testimony is irrelevant to this hearing.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q Now, Doctor, you were asked questions about the number of times you saw the defendant, in the first twenty days, was there a particular reason why you only saw the defendant one time?

A Yes.

Q And what was that reason?

A Shortly after Mr. Salvi's admission to Bridgewater State Hospital, we received a telephone call, I believe, also a faxed message, I believe also a letter, but defense counsel would know best, stating that no one was to interview Mr. Salvi without presence of his counsel.

Q And did it takes sometime with the assistance of the Court, in fact, to work out the conditions under which these interviews would take place?

A With the assistance of the Court, we were able to work out the conditions under which the forensic evaluation would take place. My interviews with him.

Although I was allowed by defense counsel, very generously, to have one interview alone, as I have previously reported to this Court.

Q Now Doctor, you were also asked some questions about a telephone call that you had with Ms. Bassil, and the issue came up of referral, did you ever make any referrals to Ms. Bassil, or anyone in the defense regarding anybody in this case?

A No, I believed it was the -- for the reasons I stated about why I felt that I could not myself learn anything about the defendant, I believed it was also a conflict of interest potentially for me to make any recommendations about the experts that the defense might retain to evaluate Mr. Salvi.

In the event, as it has turned out, that I were to testify in the case, I would be in essence, choosing the persons who would be testifying of the other side. I therefore, might have some self interest in whom I would chose.

Q So you did not do anything like that?

A No, I did not.

Q Now Doctor, you indicated in response to questions from Mr. LaChance, you used the term, autonomous decisions, is that right?

A That's correct.

Q And through the course of your evaluations of Mr. Salvi, were you able to make any, form any opinion as to whether Mr. Salvi has the ability to make autonomous decisions?

A I did.

Q And what opinion did you form regarding that subject sir?

A I formed the opinion that Mr. Salvi has the ability to make autonomous decisions.

Q And what does that mean sir, how do you define autonomous decisions?

A Autonomous decisions means decisions that are, mean, decisions that are made by the defendant such that the defendant could consult, could offer his own opinion about some issue, and to some extent, independent of counsel.

Q And does that address questions of whether this defendant, in your opinion, has the ability to make intelligent choices?

A Yes it does.

Q And what is your opinion regarding that, sir?

A I believe Mr. Salvi has the ability to make intelligent choices.

Q And did you evaluate in the course of your evaluation whether Mr. Salvi has the ability in your opinion, to make voluntary choices?

A I did.

Q And what was your opinion?

A In my opinion Mr. Salvi has the ability to make voluntary choices autonomously from counsel.

Q And did you form an opinion Doctor, did you evaluate whether Mr. Salvi has the ability to make knowing choices?

A I did.

Q And what was your opinion?

A In my opinion Mr. Salvi has the ability to make knowing choices.

Q Now Doctor, you were asked questions about your first report verses your second report, and particularly on the issue relating to Mr. Salvi's ability to relate a narrative to his counsel, is that right?

A That's correct.

Q Now Doctor, was it indicated to you by counsel that that was in a sense their primary concern?

A It was.

Q And was there something that was different about, something that motivated or that caused you to write the language you wrote in your first report concerning that issue?

A Yes.

Q What was it, Doctor?

A Data that I did not believe I could in good ethical conscious share in the report.

Q And what was that data, sir?

A Mr. Salvi's relative appraisal of the prosecution case and the defense case.

Q And why did you feel you couldn't ethnically share that in the first competency report you wrote?

A I did not feel like I could share it at any point.

Q And why was that, sir?

A Because it bore on the facts of the instant offense which might come before the fact finder in a criminal trial.

Q And what did Mr. Salvi, what did Mr. Salvi tell you about those subjects that was relevant to you on the question of his capacity to assist counsel?

MR. LaCHANCE: Objection Your Honor.

THE COURT: Come to the side bar.


THE COURT: Yes sir?

MR. LaCHANCE: This is a little difficult. He just said --

THE COURT: I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you.

MR. LaCHANCE: Okay, I'm trying not to be loud enough so that I can be heard by the reporters.

THE COURT: Yes? Have the air conditioners shut off, please.

MR. LaCHANCE: If I am not mistaken, he just said that he didn't feel like he was able to share it ethnically in either the first or the second report.

THE COURT: Are you asking the witness to tell us that information, or are you asking him to describe it in some way that it does not disclose the information itself?

MS. HINKLE: I'm actually in this case, Your Honor, I am asking him to tell us, because it has already been revealed, and what I expect the witness will say, just for Mr. LaChance's and the Court's benefit, is that the information is the information which the defendant apparently also told Dr. Resnick and which came only when we saw in Dr. Haycock's notes.

THE COURT: Please repeat it for the record.

MS. HINKLE: That is that the defendant told Dr. Haycock that he had no alibi and that his evaluation of the defense was that it was weak. Dr. Haycock only put that in his notes which we only saw once defense counsel had requested the notes and the Court had ordered them to be produced.

MR. LaCHANCE: I have no problem with that. I thought it was perhaps something else.

MS. HINKLE: Exactly.

MR. LaCHANCE: I wanted to find out what it was before --

THE COURT: But before you leave, do you expect to call another witness?

MR. KIVLAN: No we don't.

MS. HINKLE: No Your Honor.

THE COURT: So, this is the end of your rebuttal?


THE COURT: How much longer do you expect?

MS. HINKLE: I would say about twenty minutes possibly, half hour.

THE COURT: We might as well break for lunch. Do you have some problem?

MR. KIVLAN: In twenty minutes, Your Honor?

THE COURT: In twenty minutes.

MR. KIVLAN: If that's what you want to do.

THE COURT: Of course you will have --

MR. LaCHANCE: No, no, I was just pointing to, I guess maybe fifteen.

MS. HINKLE: I guess he is trying to get me to speed up.

MR. KIVLAN: The I suppose we have to mark exhibits and arguments.

THE COURT: Well, you are going to have some other issues, other than the testimony I assume, and some arguments.

MR. KIVLAN: Right.

THE COURT: So we might as well stop here.


THE COURT: Is there something that you would like to finish in this area before we break or?

MS. HINKLE: No Your Honor.

THE COURT: We will break for lunch and resume this matter at two o'clock. You can step down.


THE CLERK: Court is now in session, you may be seated.

MS. HINKLE: May I proceed, Your Honor?



Ms. Hinkle

Q Doctor, before we took the break, I had asked you a question, whether there was information that you obtained from Mr. Salvi in the first period of observation in which you felt, due to the nature of the information, you could not put in the competency report, is that right?

A Yes.

Q And what was that information, sir?

A Mr. Salvi told, in response to questions about the relative strength of the prosecution case, and the defense case, Mr. Salvi told me that he thought the prosecution case was strong and that the defense case was weak in that he did not have an alibi.

Q And due to the nature of that information, you felt you could not put it in a competency examination, is that right?

A Yes.

Q And did you in fact keep that information to yourself?

A Yes.

Q And in fact Doctor, did you not reveal that to the Commonwealth despite a meeting among the D.A.s and yourself, until your notes had been subpoenaed, or notes had been requested and in order for your notes was granted by the Court?

A Yes.

Q And was that in fact, contained in your notes?

A Yes.

Q Now, what relevance, how did that, possession of that information relate, in any way, to the way you wrote your first report?

A Well, the problem of my first report to this Court was that, although as I stated to Mr. LaChance, I did not write the entire thing on the last day, necessarily when one is writing a report, the argument section in which one is connecting the opinions expressed in a causal way to the data that one has laid out, and in attempting to explain to the Court one's reasoning among various rival hypothesis, regarding the data that one has presented, I could not figure out how to solve the problem of indicating that I felt, which is why I responded affirmatively to Mr. LaChance's statement, I felt that under the circumstances under which Mr. Salvi found himself, his decision not to talk to counsel was a reasonable one.

Q Given that Mr. Salvi told you that he did not have an alibi and that his case was weak?

A Given the totality of facts including others, aside from that.

Q What were those factors?

A I don't, I don't read the local papers regarding crime stories. From what I am to take from Dr. Resnick's striking testimony on Monday, if one were to judge the case simply from media reports, or simply from the Grand Jury transcript, not all of which I read, it would seem as if the only legal defense, the most reasonable legal defense, measured purely in legal terms would be an insanity defense.

Q Did you have the opinion, Doctor, as a result of all your evaluation, in your own view, that Mr. Salvi did not have a mental illness in terms of mental illness as defined for the purposes of schizophrenia for example?

A I have the opinion that Mr. Salvi did not have a mental illness as defined by relevant Department of Mental Health regulations for the purposes of either involuntary commitment or criminal responsibility. That's different, that's a legal definition of mental illness. It is different then mental disorder as defined clinically. As I have already testified, mental disorder as defined clinically, covers everything from sleep disorders --

MR. LaCHANCE: Objection. I move to strike his response. He was not asked to evaluate that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q Now Doctor, were there additional things, is that the reason, is it because you couldn't explain what you just have been explaining in terms of Mr. Salvi's options, that you wrote your first report saying that it was your opinion he had that ability as opposed to providing data?

A May I refer to my report?

Q Yes.

A Page 37, the last paragraph of my report. I provided an opinion to this Court for which, I am sure the Court noted, there was no data in the data section of the report. The opinion was, quote, "Since he has shown to me some ability to assess the state's case and even some ability to assess the current defense case, his failure to provide defense counsel with a version of events prevents the defendant and counsel from evaluating possible pleas and legal strategies." End of quote.

Now, the second part of that statement, obviously I did provide data to the Court regarding, but the first part of the statement I did not because I could not figure out, in the last day of available to me, how to communicate that in a way that is consistent with the ethical standards set by the Law and Psychiatry Program of the University of Massachusetts, the Division of Forensic Mental Health, the Standards of Forensic Psychiatry and Forensic Psychology, and my own commitment made to Mr. Salvi on a number of occasions.

Not regarding that particular piece of data, but rather the nature of the warning that I had given him and that I stated a series of times in my report.

Q Doctor, at the end of your first report, did you have an opinion based on all the information you had, including the information you thought you couldn't share, regarding Mr. Salvi's ability to tell a narrative if he choose to and to cooperate with counsel if he choose to?

A I did.

Q And did you set out that opinion in your first report?

A I did.

Q Now, did you find additional things in the second period of observation that aided or added to that opinion or confirmed that opinion regarding those -- Mr. Salvi's ability to cooperate with his defense counsel?

A I did.

Q And what were those other things that you found in that second period of observation?

A I did not feel, there was no way that I could ever go back to that particular piece of data, because it remained, it remained, as far as I knew, only known to Mr. Salvi and myself. And there was no way that I could, I felt consistent with what I've stated above, even hint at it. So for example, I did not say Mr. Salvi knows the meaning of the word alibi.

Therefore, I sought in the second report to find other matters on which Mr. Salvi could make, could demonstrate to me autonomous decision making capabilities.

Now, the standard about autonomous decision making capabilities is a matter of academic discussion and is not part of the legal standard. However, there is a school of thought, to which I happen to belong, that believes that in cases of great magnitude in which the charges and decisions, the charges are very severe and the decisions before the defendant are fraught with significance, that one needs to try to assess the ability of the defendant to make decisions autonomously.

So in the second period of time, I was casting about for something I could use, for information I could use that might serve as a substitute for what would have been the obvious example were it not, were it not something that I felt that I ethnically, including consistent with my commitments to Mr. Salvi, could not state either in a report or a Court of Law.

Q And did you find Doctor, in the course of that second period of observation that a number of things occurred which in fact demonstrated those abilities, in your opinion, on the part of Mr. Salvi?

A I did.

Q And what were those things that you found in the second period of observation that in your opinion demonstrated Mr. Salvi possessed those abilities?

A May I refer to my report?

MS. HINKLE: If he could?

THE COURT: Yes sir.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

A It is clear to me on the second set of entries, part of the reason I went into much greater depth about the incidence that occurred while at the second stay at Bridgewater was that I was looking for data relevant to decision making capacities. And I was in fact apprised of incidents prior, I was apprised by defense counsel of incidents prior to my talking about them with Mr. Salvi.

Q And what significance Doctor, did that in fact have to you, that is, the defense counsel would tell you of incidents Mr. Salvi was involved in at the hospital, before Mr. Salvi told you?

A It showed that when he wanted to, he could consult with his attorneys and give them a narrative of events.

Q And what other things did you find during that second period of observation relative to narratives, that showed you that Mr. Salvi had those abilities?

A Relative to narratives?

Q Well, what other things occurred, did Mr. Salvi tell you narratives of those events?

A He told me narratives of those events, yes.

Q And was there anything about the way in which or the depth to which, he told of those things that formed your opinion that he had the ability to share that information when he chose to do so?

A It was consistent, his accounts to me, although they were, I would assume given at much greater length then those he gave to his defense counsel, his account to me, his accounts to me, were delivered without the intrusion of any extraneous material, consistent with the account provided to me in advance by his defense counsel, and consistent with reports of the incident done by other observers not necessarily trained clinical observers, but other observers.

Q Did Mr. Salvi demonstrate any other abilities in his narratives that were relevant to you on the questions of his abilities with regard to his trial?

A He demonstrated -- yes.

Q What were those?

A He was able to explain to me why he had arrived at certain choices that he had expressed in his writings, and he was able to give me an account of the factors he weighed in arriving at those choices, and he was also able to consider alternatives that he thought might be equally good, to the choices that he had made.

Q In telling you the narratives that had occurred regarding these events, did Mr. Salvi tell you all about witnesses?

A Yes.

Q What did he tell you?

A He told me there were witnesses.

Q Did he in fact make any specific point regarding witnesses?

A He identified the witnesses to me.

Q And were there events that occurred, beside the narratives, that showed you in that second period of observation that Mr. Salvi had those abilities necessary to participate and relate and cooperate with defense counsel?

A There were other discussions -- there was another portion of the discussion that we had which showed me, although I did not include it in the data that I presented to this Court, that Mr. Salvi could weigh independently factors and make decisions autonomous from defense counsel.

Q What was that, what were those discussions of that information?

A It had to do with his repeatedly expressed wish to appear on the Barbara Walter's show.

Q And what did he tell you about that?

THE WITNESS: May I consult my notes, Your Honor?


A I had -- I had -- because defense counsel had supplied me with selections from the Grand Jury transcripts as well as writings, and because several of the writings indicated that he wanted to go on the Barbara Walters' show and that he would not provide the full story until he had done so, which he said would be within the year of the trial I believe, I was interested in his interest in Barbara Walters.

Q So did something occur which informed you decision about whether Mr. Salvi could take in information and make choices?

A Yes, we had a discussion about this point.

Q What did he tell you?

A I asked Mr. Salvi why, you have to bear in mind that my knowledge of television is not necessarily broad. I asked Mr. Salvi specifically, why he wanted to be interviewed by Barbara Walters and not by Jane Pauly. He responded, "Why do you ask? Did she talk to you?" I did not indicate whether Jane Pauly had talked to me or not, although Jane Pauly had not.

So I asked him again, about what it was about Barbara Walters, and he stated, quote, and these are in the notes that were taken from me by an order of the Court.

Q Just what Mr. Salvi told you, Doctor?

A What?

Q Just what Mr. Salve told you.

A "I feel that Barbara Walters has a nice show, that would be one of the first to think of, and the first to pursue," period.

I asked about alternatives to the Barbara Walters show. He stated, quote, "I know that there would be, although I know that there would be many interviewers and talk shows, and talk show hosts who would do just fine, that is one of quite a few talk shows that it would be good to be on."

I then repeated my question in a slightly different form, "Is there some reasons you would not want to be interviewed by Jane Pauly," and he said, "No." And he retained the information which I am not sure is true, but I was the one that provided it to him, he said, quote, "You say that Jane Pauly is N.B.C.," end of quote. So he retained a piece of information that I had given him. Now whether Jane Pauly is in fact associated with N.B.C., I could not say to this day.

Q Were there pieces, was there information that occurred regarding Mr. Salvi's staying at Bridgewater that showed you anything about his capacity to make judgments and take in new information?

A Yes.

Q In a general way, what was that information?

A He retained information that I had given him regarding the fact that questions might continue to surround his competency to stand trial if he did not provide a narrative to his attorneys.

Q And in the second period of observation, did Mr. Salvi appear to be not as distressed about that possibility?

A Yes.

Q And in fact, ask you a number of questions about that possibility?

A Yes.

Q Now, did Mr. Salvi also express some information to you, or relate some information to you -- Is the issue Doctor, when one is deciding on questions of relating to competency to stand trial, a person's diagnosis?

A It is not.

Q If a person were to, in fact, have a mental disease, say for example schizophrenia, is that person still capable of possessing the abilities that a Court looks at to determine whether a person is competent to stand trial or not?

A Absolutely.

Q Is there anything about schizophrenia that by its definition renders one incapable of having those abilities and one, therefore, incompetent?

A No. Although in an active phase of the disorder, depending on the individual, depending on the particular signs and symptoms that the person has during an active phases of the disorder, it might interfere with those abilities usually considered by the Court in its determination of competence to stand trial.

It's simply, a diagnosis of schizophrenia, all it means, as far as competency to stand trial is, is that it raises the probability a bit that one might have the signs and symptoms which would interfere with the abilities that a Court usually considers in making determinations to stand trial. That's all, it just increases the probability that one might have those. It is not determinant.

Q Even if we were to assume Doctor, I know this is not your opinion, but even if we were to assume that the diagnosis of Mr. Salvi as schizophrenic were correct, would you still have the opinion that based on your observation of him and that of the other staff at Bridgewater, he possesses the abilities that the Court looks at in determining competency?

A Yes.

Q Doctor, Mr. LaChance asked you some questions about whether you labeled the defendant's beliefs and his writings delusions, I believe you said you did not, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Did you in fact describe those beliefs of Mr. Salvi, how you describe them from your perspective?

A In my testimony or in my report?

Q In your report.

A You would have to refer me to it.

Q Well, did you consider the question as to whether Mr. Salvi's beliefs were delusions?

A I was concerned about the question about -- concerned about the question of whether Mr. Salvi's beliefs were delusions from the time I first talked to defense counsel, after his admission to Bridgewater State Hospital.

Q And did you ever believe that those beliefs were in fact, delusions?

A At no time, did I ever believe that Mr. Salvi's beliefs, whether taken singly or taken as a group, constituted a delusion.

Q Now, you were asked some questions about some statements made by Mr. Salvi's parents, is that right Doctor?

A That's correct.

Q And as far as you know, the statements regarding a bird, the statements regarding evil in the apartment, and the statements regarding a conversation in a car with Mr. Salvi's father, as far as you know, did those all come from Mr. Salvi's parents?

A As far as I know.

Q And as far as you know, did those all come after the date of Mr. Salvi's arrest?

That is that the statements were made, not that the events occurred?

A Yes.

Q Now Mr. LaChance asked you some questions about a writing of Mr. Salvi's in which he relates something about young, some young catholic men sterile as a result of injections of spermicide, is that right?

A Yes.

Q And did you -- you had occasion, may I approach the witness?


Q You had occasion to read that page, Doctor, is that right?

A Well, I skimmed down the page to try to find the reference that Mr. LaChance was pointing out to me while I was on the stand. I actually have not read this document.

Q And is there a sentence or two before that, that relates to birth control and population control and an event relating to conference on those subjects?

A Yes there is.

Q Now, that one sentence was pointed out to you, do you know whether that subject comes up again in anywhere in the twenty-five or so pages of that document?

A As I said, I have not read it, but I assume that Mr. LaChance, who has done a very thorough job of researching this material, would have brought it to my attention had it existed. It did not recur in any -- it did not occur in any conversation I ever had with Mr. Salvi.

Q Now, did you have an opportunity to observe the tape interview with Dr. Resnick that Mr. Salvi had?

A I did.

Q And did you observe any --

A Most of it.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

Q Did you have occasion to observe the taped interview, that Mr. Salvi had with Dr. Resnick?

THE COURT: And your answer was, most of it sir?

THE WITNESS: Most of it.

Q Did you have occasion to review the transcript of that interview in its entirety?

A I did.

Q Were there any things that you observed in the interview that Mr. Salvi had with Dr. Resnick that confirmed or -- well, confirmed your opinion regarded Mr. Salvi's ability to make --

A Yes.

Q What were those things?

A The three that immediately come to mind concern the following three abilities, often considered by the Court in making determinations to stand trial.

Mr. Salvi had an ability, as demonstrated in the tape, to confront a witness. It happened that the witness was being retained by the defense. But he showed an ability to confront the witness, very ably I thought, and even to correct the witness regarding certain points.

Q And was there a second thing that you saw that related to Mr. Salvi's ability to participate in his trial, and to understand the roles of the people involved?

A Yes.

Q And what was that, Doctor?

A Mr. Salvi showed in the tape, or showed in the interview, as I read it in the transcript and I did see a portion of the tape, but I read the entire transcript. He showed a very good understanding of the respective roles of defense expert, defense counsel, and defendant. And in particular, he showed an excellent grasp of the fact that the ultimate decision regarding a defense lies with the defendant.

Further he showed an excellent grasp of the fact that a defendant makes the decision together with his or her counsel regarding whether or not the defense expert is to relate information gathered in the course of examinations of the defendant.

Q And did you observe anything, or read anything in the interview with Dr. Resnick regarding the defendant's ability to desire to consult with his attorney?

A Yes.

Q What was that Doctor?

A He said at several points, that he wanted to review the issue of this tape with defense counsel and indeed wanted to review the tape.

Q Now Doctor, did Mr. Salvi ask you, did you bring up the subject of Paul Hill with Mr. Salvi?

A I did.

Q And what did --

MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LaCHANCE: I didn't understand, what was the word please?

MS. HINKLE: Paul Hill.

MR. LaCHANCE: I believe that is beyond the scope of cross, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I have not limited thus far, sir.

Q What did you ask Mr. Salvi regarding Mr. Hill?

A I, on my own initiative, asked Mr. Salvi if he knew who Paul Hill was.

Q And what did he tell you?

A He replied in a somewhat guarded fashion, but very precisely, I thought, quote, and I'm reading here from the notes which were taken from me by the order of the Court, and distributed to both sides last Friday.

"From what I am to understand, he's an activist in the pro-life movement." End of quote.

Mr. Salvi then asked me, "What would be the best way to find out what institution he is in." End of quote.

Now, I hadn't mentioned to Mr. Salvi, I just asked him who Paul Hill was, if he had heard of him, I hadn't mentioned that he was in an institution.

Mr. Salvi then went on and said, quote, "I would just out of curiosity be interested in what institution he was in." End of quote.

I then asked him, "Do you know anything else about Paul Hill aside from his being," quote, `An activist in the pro-life movement?'" Unquote.

He stated, quote, "I believe he was convicted of murder, that's one of the crimes you get death for." Period, end of quote.

I asked him if he knew anything about the circumstances regarding whatever this murder was. Mr. Salvi stated, quote, "I know it was an incident involving some sort of doctors or something like that." End of quote.

Q Now, you were some questions Doctor, about the provision of medication to Mr. Salvi, is that right? Were you ask some questions about that?

A I was by Mr. LaChance.

Q Now are you familiar with the procedures involved in providing medication for psychiatric conditions to people in facilities of the Commonwealth?

A I'm familiar with those procedures, yes.

Q Now, is there anything to prevent Mr. Salvi from taking medication for some psychiatric condition at the jail should he and his attorneys and his doctors wish him to do so, as far as you know?

A As far as I know, if he wants to and someone prescribes it for him, he can.

Q Now, were Mr. Salvi to be remanded back to Bridgewater, did you attempt to determine, while you had him there during the time at Bridgewater, whether in your opinion or that of the staff, he needed medication or was in a position where medication should have been prescribed for him?

A Obviously not being a physician, I could not comment myself on whether or not I thought he required medication.

However, the psychiatrist that did evaluate him at no point ever saw any sign or symptom which would in common practice as I have observed it, as a lay person again, because I am not a physician, have suggested the need for medication.

Q Now, if Mr. Salvi were to be sent for example, to Bridgewater with an order for medication, can Bridgewater involuntarily for example, provide medication to an inmate?

A Only after following a very set procedures.

Q Is that what sometimes referred to as a Roger's Hearing?

A Yes.

Q And did you ever consider or have you ever consider whether in your opinion Mr. Salvi meets the criteria where an involuntary medication order would be issued?

MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.

THE COURT: Repeat the question again.

Q Have you ever considered the question, yourself, as to whether Mr. Salvi would meet the criteria for such a Roger's Hearing, for example, that medication --

THE COURT: Are you in a position to answer that question, sir?

THE WITNESS: Not directly.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q Now Doctor, you were asked some questions about some statements that were reportedly made by Mr. Salvi to his father in a car, is that right?

A Yes.

Q Relating to the Ku Klux Klan and other things?

A Yes.

Q You said, that you had the Grand Jury minutes provided to you by the Commonwealth during the evaluation period, is that right Doctor?

A Yes.

Q Did you have an opportunity to read all of them?

A No. I skimmed to try to find things that might be relevant to the purposes for which I had been ordered to examine him. But those areas that didn't seem pertinent to those purposes, I skipped.

Q If I were to tell you Doctor, that the testimony in the Grand Jury was that a note was passed by Mr. Salvi to his father and that the note said something about the Ku Klux Klan and the maffia, but those were the only two words the father could see, if that was the testimony regarding that subject in the Grand Jury, if that were, for example, it that were the hypothetical I set out to you, as opposed to that hypothetical Mr. LaChance did, would that effect your question as to whether that by itself would constitute a delusion?

A I think I answered in response to LaChance's more elaborate question, that I would not, in and of itself, consider the hypothetical that he posed to me, to constituted delusion, and certainly Mr. Salvi's writings are replete with references to the K.K.K., also to the Maffia, also to the Masons, etcetera.

So, if the only -- if the testimony was, and I did not read that testimony, but if the testimony, I don't think anyway. I don't recall that -- I think I would have had a better answer to Mr. LaChance if I recalled it --

THE COURT: If you can, respond directly to that question, sir.

Q I will rephrase it Doctor.

Would that fact, the testimony as I set it out to you, if you assume that that were testimony, would that clearly constitute to you a delusion?

A Absolutely not.

Q Now Doctor, during the time that Mr. Salvi was in Bridgewater, as far as you know, did he ever complain of being food poisoned during that sixty days?

A No.

Q In Bridgewater?

A No, not at Bridgewater as far as I know.

Q Now, you were also asked some questions about different parts of your report by Mr. LaChance, and do you recall Mr. LaChance asking you some questions regarding Mr. Salvi's affect?

A Yes.

Q And reading to you from a part of your report regarding Mr. Salvi's affect?

A Yes.

Q And if you could turn to Page 19, if you would sir, of your report. I think Mr. LaChance read to you the part that goes, that ends with, "His affect was bland and flat," at the first paragraph of Page 19.

A Now, this is Dr. DiCataldo's report, right.

Q Dr. DiCataldo's report that you put into your report, is that right?

A That's correct.

Q And the sentence after the place where Mr. LaChance stopped Doctor --

A If you could just, what line are we on now? Is it the first full paragraph?

Q Yes, Line 8?

A Oh yes, I see it.

Q Was the sentence after that that Mr. Salvi displayed an more animated and lively effect when the examiner --

A Affect.

Q -- inquired abut his reaction to the media attention that has circled around his legal case?

A Yes, that's the sentence that follows the one that Mr. LaChance quoted.

Q You also had an opportunity to review Dr. Resnick's notes, Doctor?

A Are these the notes from June 18th?

Q Yes.

A Yes.

Q And you indicated, Mr. LaChance asked you some questions about the death penalty, and Mr. Salvi told you -- you had some conversation with Mr. Salvi about the death penalty?

A That's correct.

Q And did you also observe in Dr. Resnick's notes some statements regarding Mr. Salvi and the death penalty?

MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A I believe I did, but I would have to see my copy, I marked my copy.

Q Well, do you recall Doctor, reading something about Mr. Salvi's view of the death penalty verses life, verses a period of years?

A I don't specifically recall, again, I would have to look at my copy of that.

MS. HINKLE: May I have a minute, Your Honor?


MS. HINKLE: No further questions Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes sir?

MR. LaCHANCE: Just a couple, Your Honor.


Mr. LaChance

Q Doctor, you talked on redirect about, that there were conditions placed upon your interviews of Mr. Salvi, is that right?

A Yes.

Q All right, there had been a dispute that had been resolved which resulted in Mr. Salvi's counsel not being present when you interviewed Mr. Salvi, is that correct?

A In all but my first interview with him, yes.

Q Well, Ms. Bassil came down and introduced you to him and then left, isn't that true?

A Counsel was never present during my interviews with Mr. Salvi. I was so directed by Mr. McDermitt.

Q Okay. The point is Doctor, that you never had an opportunity to see Mr. Salvi interrelate with his attorneys, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q In doing other competency examines have you observed attorneys interacting with their clients to provide you with certain information about that interaction?

A Extremely rarely have I ever been in the same room with a defendant and an attorney regarding -- when I am asked to -- when I am ordered to conduct a competency evaluation.

Q In any event, you were not able to see that interaction, in this case, as Dr. Resnick and Dr. Schouten did, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Was there any point in time, during your investigation of Mr. Salvi's competence where you thought that might help you in making your evaluation?

A Initially I did.

Q You talked to us a bit about Mr. Salvi's talking to you about the relative merit of his case, and not having an alibi, is that right?

A Yes.

Q When you talked to him about alibi, did you ask him what he meant by the word?

A No.

Q When you talked about that with Mr. Salvi and after you talked about with Mr. Salvi, did you ask either of his attorneys what their experience had been with him as to whether or not they knew what he meant by the word alibi?

A No.

Q You've heard the term alibi used in connection with not having witnesses that you were someplace else, haven't you?

A Yes I have.

Q If Mr. Salvi had been someplace else but did not have witnesses to that fact, he would have told you that he didn't have an alibi if that were the circumstance, wouldn't he?

A I don't know what he would have told me if that were the circumstance.

Q And that's because we don't know what Mr. Salvi means when he uses the word alibi, is that right?

A I don't know exactly what he meant when he used with me, if that's your question.

Q Okay. And you never sought to ascertain that in this context?

A I gave him my commitment, that I was not going to -- that I was not interested at all in any facts pertaining to those issues which would be brought be before a fact finder and that if he stated any of those to me, I would interrupt him.

Q Sir, you said you thought his decision not to talk with his counsel was at that point a reasonable one, is that right?

A Yes.

Q And you thought that because the only legal defense you could think of was a not guilty by reason of insanity, is that correct?

A That was one of the factors I weighed and it certainly seemed to be -- counsel, as I think I have already testified, counsel expressed to me specifically, concerns about the fact that since they did not have an account of the incidents in question, they did not have an account from Mr. Salvi of his mental state at the time of the alleged incident.

Q And you thought it was reasonable for him not to talk to them about his mental state because the evidence was so strong against him and you didn't think that an N.G.R.I. was appropriate, is that what you are saying?

A No. I'm not saying that at all.

Q There is another defense there though Doctor, isn't there?

There is a defense of, for lack of a better word, diminished capacity, or lack of specific intent, or lack of ability to form requisite intent in a case, correct?

A There are Mens Rea defenses. In this Commonwealth I do not believe the diminished capacity defense per se, is recognized by the S.J.C.

Q Let's put it this way Doctor, murder in the first degree can be reduced to either murder in the second degree or manslaughter, if the individual does not have malice or specific intent, isn't that correct Doctor.

MS. HINKLE: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q Doctor, isn't what you just told us, that a person who is in big trouble with a lot of evidence against him has less of a need to talk to his lawyers and to express what happened during the offense then someone who is in much minor trouble?

A No.

MR. LaCHANCE: That's all Doctor, thank you.

THE COURT: Anything?

MS. HINKLE: Nothing?

THE COURT: Thank you Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Thank you Your Honor.

MR. KIVLAN: Your Honor, the Commonwealth rests subject marking a few exhibits if we could.

One of them would be all the materials that went to Bridgewater from our office that are listed in Dr. Haycock's report. I would like to offer those as an exhibit.

MR. LaCHANCE: I would object based on what Dr. Haycock just said on the stand, was that he hadn't read all of the Grand Jury minutes.

MR. KIVLAN: Well, he said that he had scanned them, and there are police reports and other materials.

THE COURT: I am going to receive that as Exhibit 17. I'm sure it is not packaged in any way.

MR. KIVLAN: It is in a box, Your Honor, yes.

THE COURT: Could you put a label on the box?

MR. KIVLAN: Yes. Also Your Honor, there are the Bridgewater Hospital records themselves.

THE COURT: I thought that was a part of Exhibit 1?

MR. KIVLAN: I'm not sure.

THE COURT: Or is it just the two reports?

MS. HINKLE: I believe it was just the two reports.

MR. KIVLAN: Right.

THE COURT: So the hospital records are Exhibit 18?

MR. KIVLAN: Right.

This is seventeen.

THE CLERK: Thanks. Exhibit 17, so marked.

(Exhibit Number 17, Hospital Records, Marked and Received into Evidence)

THE CLERK: Exhibit 18 so marked.

(Exhibit Number 18, Hospital Records, Marked and Received into Evidence)

MR. KIVLAN: And then Your Honor, one of the exhibits, one of the exhibits, the Fatima Crusader excerpts --


MR. KIVLAN: Counsel agrees with us, that that was incomplete and we have a complete copy of that and would like to mark, I don't know maybe Your Honor would want 10 A?

THE COURT: Exhibit 10 A, you don't want to substitute the full for the incomplete pamphlet?

MR. KIVLAN: Well, the 10 does have the addressee's name on it.

THE COURT: I see, 10 A then.

THE CLERK: Exhibit 10 A so marked.

(Exhibit Number 10 A, Pamphlet, Marked and Received into Evidence)

MR. KIVLAN: And then in addition to that, Your Honor, I have records pertaining to the entire Hill and Griffin trials, but rather than burden you with the actual records, I asked the lead prosecutor from the District Attorney's Office in Pensicola, Florida to give me an affidavit, outlining, it's only three pages, summarizing the material that has been in evidence already through the testimony of various witnesses.

THE COURT: Is this agreed to?

MR. LaCHANCE: No, it is not Your Honor. I haven't even had a chance to read this yet, so I don't know.

(Brief Pause)

MR. LaCHANCE: I would object, this contains much more information, than has been brought out through testimony in this case.

MR. KIVLAN: Well, Your Honor, I believe that it covers all of the points that have been acknowledge in one way or another.

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

MR. KIVLAN: Well then, that being the case Your Honor, I would like to at this time, offer the entire trial that we have obtained through Court T.V. some time ago. It is all on video tape. We have people from Court T.V. here if there is any authentication problems. We have a letter from Court T.V.

THE COURT: Is there objections to this, sir?

MR. LaCHANCE: Yes there is Your Honor. I don't see how the content is relevant. There has been testimony about the Hill case to a certain extent in this hearing. The Court has that. The Court will have a transcript of this hearing if the Court needs it to refresh her recollection.

THE COURT: I agree sir, sustained.

MR. KIVLAN: Could I be heard on that briefly?

THE COURT: Briefly.

MR. KIVLAN: Sure. There is two reasons we offer this Your Honor. One is that based on the evidence that's even been brought forward at this hearing, you could draw a reasonable inference, and I am speaking in particular to the references that Dr. Resnick himself explicitly conceded were evidence in the case --

THE COURT: But I have that information.

MR. KIVLAN: Oh no, I understand that Your Honor, but there was some question at the time, of whether or not you asked me to make an offer of proof, you did ask me, would there be evidence at the conclusion of the hearing that would support these questions.

THE COURT: I see. This was an issue that was raised sir, at the side bar.

MR. KIVLAN: Right.

THE COURT: And if you are willing to withdraw that objection, then there would be no need as I understand it --

MR. KIVLAN: That would be true Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. LaChance, are you --

MR. LaCHANCE: May I have a moment Your Honor, to consider that?


MR. LaCHANCE: I would just like to look at my notes.


(Brief Pause)

MR. LaCHANCE: I would withdraw the objection Your Honor, if it were to keep the Court T.V. tapes out.

MR. KIVLAN: I would ask that in the case that the affidavit would be returned to me.


MR. KIVLAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. KIVLAN: The only other matter Your Honor is there still are some materials that have either been marked for identification and have not been marked as exhibits or referred to and not even marked as identification.

The ones that I am referring to that haven't been marked as anything as yet, is there was extensive reference to a transcript of a interview between Dr. Schouten and the defendant, which occurred on February 23, 1995, it was not offered by Mr. LaChance, along with some notes of Dr. Schouten.

Now, they are entitled not to offer those if they don't wish to, but I am just suggesting that they should be marked as exhibits. Counsel.

MR. LaCHANCE: I'm not offering them Judge.

THE COURT: Are you asking that they be marked for identification?

MR. KIVLAN: I am, Your Honor, so at least, there was reference made to them in cross-examination, and direct examination.

THE COURT: Where are we in the letter?

THE CLERK: Identification E, I believe Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, E for identification.

(Identification E, Transcript and Notes, marked)

MR. KIVLAN: None of us can put a hand on the notes yet, Your Honor, but we will make arrangements with your clerk to do that.

THE COURT: This is the report and the notes?

THE COURT: Yes Your Honor.

MR. LaCHANCE: Transcript and notes.

THE COURT: Transcript and notes.

MR. KIVLAN: So that leaves for identification, A for Identification which is an article by Dr. Resnick entitled the Political Offender. I would like to have that offered as an exhibit.


MR. KIVLAN: There's no objection to that.

THE COURT: So that would be 19, I believe.

THE CLERK: Formally A is now Exhibit 19.

(Exhibit Number 19, Article, Marked and Received into Evidence)

MR. KIVLAN: There is also Resnick's notes which are marked B for Identification.

MR. LaCHANCE: I would object to the Doctor's notes being marked. I think they can remain as an I.D. when he was confronted with them, that's sufficient for the record.

THE COURT: We will leave it B, is that right?

THE CLERK: Yes, B Your Honor.

THE COURT: Identification B will remain.

MR. KIVLAN: And C are Dr. Kinschereff's note.

MR. LaCHANCE: I would object to those also going into evidence, but they can be marked.

THE COURT: It's already marked, I believe, C.

MR. KIVLAN: Right.

THE COURT: And will remain.

MR. KIVLAN: Those would be all of the exhibits that we would offer.

THE COURT: Now, have I received all of the exhibits that were offered by the Commonwealth? There was a reservation as to some portion, I believe, of Exhibit 1, did you indicate that?

MS. HINKLE: It was the Federal transcripts, Your Honor, there were two transcripts of Mr. Salvi's, Federal arraignments, and I believe those were provided to the Clerk. They are in the box, actually I believe, that has now been marked as Exhibit 17.

MR. KIVLAN: Exactly.

MS. HINKLE: Maybe they should be removed from that Your Honor, and go -- because we just put them for ease, into that box, they shouldn't be there, they should actually be a part of Exhibit 1.

THE COURT: Or a separate exhibit if you would like.

MR. KIVLAN: Well, actually Your Honor, they went to Bridgewater, so they could remain in Exhibit 17.

THE COURT: As long as they are accounted for.

MR. KIVLAN: Right.

MR. LaCHANCE: Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes sir.

MR. LaCHANCE: I don't have copies of those transcripts, those two transcripts, can copies be made for me.

MR. KIVLAN: Sure. Defense counsel have them, but we will make some for Mr. LaChance.

MR. LaCHANCE: Thank you.

THE COURT: Anything from the -- anything further?

MR. KIVLAN: No Your Honor. I'm ready for argument at this time.

THE COURT: Is there an argument at this time?

MR. LaCHANCE: Well, I have some additional things to put in.


MR. LaCHANCE: Since the government is putting in what Bridgewater had from the government, this is a bound volume of documents that was -- that are the ones that were sent to Dr. Haycock down at Bridgewater.

MR. KIVLAN: We have no objection.

THE COURT: Exhibit 20.

THE CLERK: Exhibit 20 so marked.

(Exhibit number 20, Bound Volume of Documents, marked and received into evidence)

MR. LaCHANCE: And Your Honor, I would request to make an proffer, I would like more notes that have been past to me by Mr. Salvi during the course of this hearing.

THE COURT: Now, some of them had been marked, had they not?

MR. LaCHANCE: There is one marked 7 which has been introduced.

THE COURT: That's the one you examined the witness with.

MR. LaCHANCE: That's correct. There's one that has been marked D. I have three others that I would ask to have marked.

THE COURT: For identification?

MR. LaCHANCE: Well, I 'd ask that they, that they go in. They were notes pass to me during the case and I think they show something about Mr. Salvi, and I would request that they be introduced.

MR. KIVLAN: Your Honor, I see no reason why these notes should be marked as exhibits. They are marked for identification, they are identified.

THE COURT: For identification only. This would be F. You can marked them as a grouped together.

THE CLERK: F for Identification marked.

(Exhibit F, Notes, Marked for Identification)

MR. LaCHANCE: What was E?

THE COURT: Transcript. Anything else Mr. LaChance?

MR. LaCHANCE: I don't think so, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any argument at this time?


MR. LaCHANCE: A moment please.


(Brief Pause)

MR. LaCHANCE: Your Honor, for the purposes of records since they were offered, I would ask that the affidavit and the Court T.V. tapes be marked simply for identification.

THE COURT: The affidavit?

MR. LaCHANCE: The affidavit that was offered, and the Court T.V. tapes should be marked for identification because they were offered in evidence.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KIVLAN: Well, at this point Your Honor, we would like to keep custody of the tapes, if they are not going to be marked as an exhibit. I certainly don't want this affidavit floating around, if it is not going to be an exhibit.

THE COURT: Well, you offered this and I declined to accept to it, sir. We need to preserve our record.

MR. KIVLAN: If you wish to have it marked for identification Your Honor, that's fine. As far as the tapes are concerned, we would like to retain custody of those, make some arrangement with the clerk.

THE COURT: Yes, they can be reproduced. This is the affidavit, this would be G. And attach it.

Arguments, Mr. LaChance?

Sir, are you filing any requests for rulings, findings of ruling?

MR. LaCHANCE: I would request some time to do that Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is the Commonwealth filing requests today.

MR. KIVLAN: We will have a memorandum of law today Your Honor, but I --

THE COURT: Do you intend to? I'm not pressuring you.

MR. KIVLAN: No we aren't.

THE COURT: Do you intend sir?

MR. LaCHANCE: Yes Your Honor.

THE COURT: And how much time would you need?

MR. LaCHANCE: I would ask for thirty days since I am suppose to start a murder trial.

THE COURT: Sir, I can't give you thirty days. This is something that needs to be done speedily.

MR. LaCHANCE: I would ask for at -- what would Your Honor propose?

THE COURT: Sir, I would like it in a week or ten days. There is nothing I can do, as you might know, for the next week or so. But I do need to get this as soon as possible.

MR. LaCHANCE: If you give us ten days, that would be appreciated.

THE COURT: Ten days.

MR. LaCHANCE: May it please the Court.

This is an unusual type of case because it is a case in which the Court has to get inside Mr. Salvi's mind to see what it is and how it operates at the present time.

The Commonwealth has the burden of showing Mr. Salvi's competency by a preponderance of the evidence, and in this particular case, I suggest to the Court, that when the evidence is marshalled, when the evidence is carefully looked at, the Commonwealth will have been seen to have not met that burden.

Mr. Salvi was examined by a number of doctors in connection with this case.

Amicus counsel has presented three doctors, Dr. Resnick, Dr. Schouten, and Dr. Kinschereff. Two of who made full competency evaluations and have given the opinion to Your Honor that Mr. Salvi is not competent to stand trial, that he does not pass the test of having the rational understanding and more importantly in this particular case, the ability to cooperate with counsel and to give them the information they need.

We start with the proposition that is not contested by either party, and that is that Mr. Salvi has not cooperated with his counsel by giving them a description of his whereabouts and his activities during the time period in question.

It is, I think, conceded by all of the experts that this is necessary for them in order to determine and to prepare an appropriate defense for Mr. Salvi.

Especially in the area dealing with any kind of mental defenses, whether we call it diminished capacity, or whether we call it not guilty by reason of insanity, whatever we call it, it is necessary for individuals to know, his counsel to know, what his state of mind was during that period of time. Or whether he says he is elsewhere. Whether there is some other defense that may exist that they can consider and assert.

At this time their hands are tied. Because as even Dr. Haycock opined in his reports, what Mr. Salvi has done is effectively to have waived counsel in this case.

Secondly, we have an agreement, I think, between all of the experts who testified in this case, that Mr. Salvi is suffering from a mental disorder. Dr. Haycock says it is a personality disorder, best described as schizotypal personality disorder, Dr. Schouten and Dr. Resnick term it a schizophrenia, undifferentiated, with delusions.

Dr. Haycock correctly noted that what you call the mental disorder or defect doesn't really matter, it is the effect of that mental disorder or defect upon Mr. Salvi's abilities to rationally understand the proceedings against him and to effectively assist his counsel in putting forth the facts that they need from him to work with in this case.

So the real issue is here, what effect does Mr. Salvi's metal disorder have on those abilities. We suggest to you that the weight of the evidence is clearly that Mr. Salvi's mental illness in fact intruded upon and directly effected those abilities and those capacities.

Mr. Salvi, I suggest to the Court it has been shown, had a delusional system in which he was operating. He had that system that involved a perception that catholics were being persecuted by Free Masons and others, that it was almost, if not entirely, a world wide conspiracy, that there were aspects of that conspiracy that resulted in catholic males, especially, loosing their jobs, while others were specifically retained because they were not catholic.

And Mr. Salvi, as he told Dr. Resnick, was part of a small group of individuals, called an apostolate, who were charged with the duty of bringing about a catholic welfare state in the United State, and perhaps in the world, in which individuals would be paid $700 a month, at least initially, to supplement their incomes so that they would not be under the control of and subject to the authority of the political figures that were persecuting the catholics.

This belief system, if you will, became so powerful in John Salvi's life that it has overshadowed virtually everything else in his life.

During the course of this hearing, Mr. Salvi has been concerned, and you saw two disruption, perhaps three, in the courtroom of his attempts to get out the message that he feels that he is born, if you will, to carry, born, if you will, to see is created on this earth.

That activity, that obsession to the exclusion of everything else, directly effects his abilities, either to communicate with counsel, or to see the real kind of peril that he is involved with in this particular case.

Everything revolves around this system. Every chance he gets to speak, every opportunity he gets to get his message out, he uses. I suggest to the Court, that that specifically interferes with his ability to listen to witnesses, to respond to what the witnesses say rather to his own belief system, and to testify relevantly at any kind of a hearing. Because of those interferences in that kind of a situation, John Salvi is not competent to stand trial.

We have evidence accumulated over a period of time that supports these belief systems as a delusion. I suggest to the Court, you heard that he's had delusions before, he's had hallucinations before, all of these related by outside people, yes. Some his parents whom he lived with for a period of time and whom he was the closes with, but also from at least a friend, an acquaintance who lived in the same rooming house as he, who reported him talking about those things during a period of time when he was not at peril in this case.

Dr. Haycock didn't see, and neither did Bridgewater, some evidence of delusions, as they call it, or hallucinations. Interestingly, there is an issue that's been raised here as to whether or not the central catholic theme of John Salvi's life is a delusion or merely an idiosyncratic belief. The two psychiatrist have called it a delusion and explained to you at some length why it was in fact a delusion. The point is, that whatever we call it, John Salvi is infected with it.

Now, John Salvi went to Bridgewater and saw Dr. Haycock after he had seen Dr. Resnick, Dr. Kinschereff, and Dr. Schouten. And after, as you know, they had talked to him about the possibilities of him being held incompetent to stand trial. And Mr. Salvi reacted negatively to that. He believes he is competent. He believes he ought to stand trial. And I suggest to you that Dr. Resnick makes good sense when he talks about a term of reversed malingering.

John Salvi, when he went to Bridgewater, knew what he was going there for. The first forty days, he knew, and the second forty days, or the second set of times he went back there, he was angry about going back there. He didn't want to go back. He wanted to be held competent, didn't think there was any reason to send him back.

There was all the reason in the world for him to mask his symptomology for him to not talk in certain areas where he learned from experience in talking to Dr. Resnick and Dr. Schouten and Dr. Kinschereff, they touched on areas of competence. And that's why he began to assert a privilege, or that's too private, I don't want to get into that.

And I suggest to that that's the reason he answered the questions that he did on the psychological tests, whenever the questions approached his religion, his values, or were a patent attempt to get within him and discover what was going on inside him because he did not want his sanity questioned. He did not want his mental competency questioned. He did not want his belief system questioned by a label on him of being incompetent or being somehow mentally ill.

I think one of the most telling parts of this whole thing is a line in Dr. Haycock's report and the notations of Dr. Resnick and Dr. Schouten, that Mr. Salvi, although charged with two counts of murder and umpteen counts of assault with attempt to commit murder, displayed no anxiety about his situation at all.

In fact, the Bridgewater records will reflect that what he wanted to talk about in the sessions at Bridgewater were not his situations but the food at Bridgewater. The records which are now in evidence are replete with information about how Mr. Salvi, what he thought about the food and how he eventually came up with a plan to help everyone out including the people who didn't have their own canteen by restructuring the meals at Bridgewater, to make them more healthful for all of the people there.